> The real fix is paying money for everything, but as evidenced by the many attempts at this, no one actually wants to pay.
I mean, want is a strong word, but I'm very much okay with paying creators I follow. I have a patreon account with about 22 subscriptions from 1-50 dollars, because what they create enhances my life.
> For example, your average techy YouTuber just doing cool geeky stuff, 50% of viewers block ads and <1% become patreon/other paying subs. This comes under some kind of misplaced guise that if everyone blocks ads, geeky YouTuber will work for free.
First sentence is correct, the second is patently ridiculous. I don't block ads because I think people should work for free: I block ads because every virus I've ever gotten has been delivered to me via an ad network that's not properly vetting what's being pushed to it, and to save incredible amounts of mobile data, and to prevent my phone from getting (as) hot in my hand.
The creator who's page I'm looking at is not even a factor in this calculus. I don't care. If you put up your stuff and are monetizing via ads only and I bounce off that and you earn nothing, oh well. Put it behind a proper paywall then, just, not my problem boss.
> The Internet needs a level headed reconciliation with "the beast".
The Internet, collectively, has been in an abusive relationship with this beast since it's inception. And yeah we got a bunch of free-at-point-of-use services out of it. Okay? I didn't ask Facebook to exist. I didn't request Twitter, I wasn't simply dying of lack of Linked-In. In fact my life would be better if many of these things closed up shop tomorrow and fucked right off.
In time immemorial, it was normal to host VBulletin forums, your own static website, run a BBS, an ICQ server or TeamSpeak server, or whatever for literally nobody. We had no idea if any damn one was reading what we wrote back then, but we wrote anyway because as most people do in one way or another, we felt the drive to create and to share, and then as the internet evolved and the tools became more successful, we built communities, we built forums, we built email lists, all kinds of decentralized, albiet limited, ways to remain in contact with likeminded people.
It was the monoliths who came onto the scene, stuffed to the gills with VC money, who suddenly gave us Facebook, Reddit, Twitter, all the rest of the websites of which there are like 6 now that everything is on. They showed up, and provided free services in exchange for our data. We didn't ask for that, they gave it freely. And now a couple decades on-ish they're finding out that monetizing user data, which has been the go-to excuse for all that time, doesn't really pay the bills and most of them are either losing money or are selling their souls to anyone who will purchase ad space, which is why ads are basically all scams now.
Ad companies have spent the better part of my life digging their own graves and I'm very excited to watch them lay down in them. Rest in piss. The Internet lived before the Platforms, and it will survive them.
The rich are increasingly uninterested in keeping up appearances.
And really, why should they? We've learned now that there was actually a worldwide network of child rapists purchasing girls from other wealthy child traffickers in positions of power in seemingly every Western nation, and the consensus thus far is to do exactly nothing about it.
> The point GP was making, which holds as a general rule, is that simply adopting a moniker does not necessarily mean that it accurately describes you.
I'm deeply curious why you think someone would identify as an anti-fascist if they were not, in fact, anti-fascist. Do you think they just really like the flag logo or...?
Every time an article like this gets posted some commenter INEVITABLY brings up "isn't this solved because AI" and god it is so depressing. Apparently a whole lot of people out there existing in the world genuinely think fucking LLMs are going to be reliable stewards of knowledge.
Personally I think Microsoft's stock is crashing less about any of this (though it is a hell of a theory IMO) and more to do with the fact that:
* They are investing in AI, both financially and by corporate communication, over and above everything else and pissing off damn near everyone in the process
* The XBox brand is tanking
* Windows is an utter disaster, according to Microsoft themselves, and Valve is so dispirited with it as the future for gaming that they've invested millions into a linux-based framework to run Windows games
I’m a little impressed at how a company whose business model is to sell a product they developed in the 1990s over and over again while making inconsequential and non-breaking changes from year to year somehow still manage to screw that up. In my own opinion, they have always been a diabolical company. I’m glad to see them fail.
> I’m a little impressed at how a company whose business model is to sell a product they developed in the 1990s over and over again while making inconsequential and non-breaking changes from year to year somehow still manage to screw that up.
This wasn't nearly as bad as what's going on with Microsoft and Windows.
In retrospect, Coke made mistakes, but at the time their logic was kinda sound. Market was changing, people were changing, product tested really well, etc.
And they owned up to the mistake and reverted in under 90 days. Honestly, they probably came out stronger and re-affirmed the attachment that people have with the brand.
In addition, they haven't made that mistake again and have been much smarter protecting their core while chasing trends. Free-style is a brilliant bit of tech, marketing, and logistics combined.
Love the last line, what Valve has done on Windows emulation is herculean, I don't know (it would be great to know) other businesses creating/investing in incredible and risky third-party compatible technologies to run their real business on top of it.
I worked in what other calls "Adversarial Interoperability" [1] but the scale of Valve is on another level.
On the hand at one point the emulation layer becomes the target. Hopefully game developers will realise this and start using native Linux technologies before they are tied to a single companies abstraction layer. Again.
When it was created DirectX was a really useful thing for game makers. It made it easier to write hardware accelerated applications that were also consumer friendly. Contemporary Windows is full of anti-patterns. MSFT just can't seem to resist sticking things into it that make it less pleasant to use in support of MSFT's ecosystem. It's no wonder Valve invests into trying to be independent of that.
Could not possibly agree more. When did we accept, "Users are doing the scamming, not the company" as an excuse? If it's your platform, you should be held responsible for all the illegal actions that it enabled.
If a magazine published a page with a scam, they're responsible. Same should apply to social media.
I literally don't care if it puts them out of business because the moderation would be too severe.
I mean, no one's ever made a tool who's scope is "making literally anything you want," including, apparently CSAM. So we're in a bit of uncharted waters, really. Like mostly, no I would agree, it's a bad idea to hold the makers of a tool responsible for how it's used. And, this is an especially egregious offense on the part of said tool-maker.
Like how I see this is:
* If you can't restrict people from making kiddie porn with Grok, then it stands to reason at the very least, access to Grok needs to be strictly controlled.
* If you can restrict that, why wasn't that done? It can't be completely omitted from this conversation that Grok is, pretty famously, the "unrestrained" AI, which in most respects means it swears more, quotes and uses highly dubious sources of information that are friendly to Musk's personal politics, and occasionally spouts white nationalist rhetoric. So as part of their quest to "unwoke" Grok did they also make it able to generate this shit too?
> What if, instead of having to reach out to the big players, the economics of having a software developer or 2 on staff make it such that you could build custom-tailored, bespoke software to work "with" your company and not against?
The behemoths exist especially, but not exclusively, in that space because regulations (correctly) are steep. In the case of hospital systems you're talking both the management and protection of both employee and patient data. That's not to say of course that the behemoth's are particularly good at that, it's merely that if the hospital rolls it's own solution, as you suggest, they then take on the liability should that system go wrong. On the other side, if Epic has a data breach, every hospital shrugs it's shoulders. It isn't their problem. And, even more fundamentally, if Epic as a product sucks ass... well. The employees didn't choose it, neither did the patients, leadership did.
You see these relationships (or lack thereof) all over the place in our modern world, where the people doing the work with these absurdly terrible tools are not given any decision-making power with regard to which tools to use. Hell, at my workplace, we actually have some in that leadership asks if we're happy with our various HR softwares and things, but fundamentally, they all pretty much suck and we're currently sitting at the least shitty one we could find, which is far from a solid fit for our smaller company. But it's the best we can do because none of these suites are designed to be good for people to use, they're designed to check a set of legal and feature checkboxes for the companies they sell to.
Honestly I don't know how you fix this, short of barring B2B SAAS as an entire industry. Time was, when you wanted to run a sales company, you had to run your own solution to keeping track of internal data. Salesforce didn't exist. You had rows upon rows of file cabinets, if there was a fire data was a lost, if a disgruntled worker stole your sales list and sold it to a competitor, that was it's own issue to deal with. Now crooks can crack the locks off of NetSuite and steal your whole fucking business without even knowing where the hell your HQ even is or caring for that matter, and our business universe if you will is bifurcated all to hell as a result. Companies are engaged in constant games of "pin the legal responsibility on someone else" because to compete, they need internet and software based sales and data management systems, but building those systems is a pain in the ass, and then you're responsible if they go wrong.
One of my most guilty indulgences is the various TV programs about hoarders and hoarding. They are of course sensationalized all to shit and they basically provoke mental breakdowns out of their subjects to make good TV. The guilt isn't just that it's bad like all reality TV- you can tell these people, a lot of them anyway, have serious mental difficulties that a TV show showing up with 4 1-800-GOT-JUNK trucks and parking them out front of their homes before pulling all their shit out for neighbors to see and then yelling at them for being distressed about it isn't addressing. They offer "therapy" as part of it, after they've traumatized the fuck out of someone already struggling. Woo.
But I watch. I have a mother who's started down the path. Maybe I'm like... training myself for what's probably due in about 15 years. Or maybe I'm just making excuses for indulging in trash TV.
The article is definitely correct: these people need help. They also usually need money. They usually need a lot of both. A lot of those shows take place in dilapidated parts of the world where you can tell, obviously, that the hoarding is certainly an issue but an even more pressing one is poverty. People keep everything when they're broke, far long past the point of reason, because they've found themselves needing... who knows, a tooth brush, a can of food, and had it kept from them by money so many times that they psychologically can't bear to throw one out, ever. Even if it's rotted away.
And what's worse: because throughout any attempt at helping them, anyone, is then a threat. They become animated, angry, and any action that can actually help them is like playing Russian roulette with 5 bullets in a 6-shooter. They'll tell you with a straight, red face that yes they fucking need the mayo that's been in the diner packets for 10 years because it's still fine and usable. It's hard to feel sympathy for people so insufferable, and it's not even just you, the helper. They're often estranged from family and have no friends because their behaviors strain every relationship beyond repair.
It's... tragic, in every sense of the word.
FWIW, I also watch a lot of YouTubers who do this in a way that isn't evil. But also the content is less engaging because, well, reality TV wouldn't poke people the way it does into acting the way they do if it didn't make fucking good content. But yeah, I feel notably less disgusting consuming that at least.
My mother went down this road (she, fortunately, had enough resources that it wasn't a catastrophe), but last year was forced to downsize due to a medical condition. I filled 2 20-yard dumpsters with the trash, donated another truckload, and put the rest (anything she might actually value) in storage. Since then, I've been going through that remainder with her and I think she's finally coming around to the absurdity of her situation. It turns out she isn't actually attached to her parents' monogrammed (but moth-eaten) linens, or the contents of her grandmother's sewing box.
In my strictly non-professional opinion, as a watcher of this stuff: the hoarders stuff almost always replaces something. Maybe it's a person who is gone, or was driven away. Maybe it's a purpose they only had before they retired. Maybe it's an event that drove them to crazy places to get by, and even though it's past, it's scars remain. Maybe it's merely the abstract concept of control, and agency; this one crops up a lot with the older female subjects of the shows, who's abusive husbands controlled them their entire lives, almost with regularity exhibiting all the classic signs of Battered Woman Syndrome.
It's hard for me to disentangle this with the inhumane way modern life lets people live.
It's not for everyone, but I found I was keeping a lot of things "for the memories". I started taking pictures of the thing then getting rid of it. Serves similar purpose and easier to let it go.
Also scrapbooking. I've really gotten into that lately as I struggle to get rid of like, strange things. Parking passes and tickets for concerts, receipts from dinners on trips, that sort of thing.
Scrap booking is wonderful for such things. And when I need a boost, I pop it open and get a rush of memories from all the lovely things I've gotten to do.
Genuinely: What profits!?! The only company profiting from AI has been nVidia. Every indicator we've received for this entire alleged industry is companies buying hundreds of millions of dollars in graphics cards that then either sit in warehouses depreciating in value or, worse, are plugged in and immediately start losing money.
The tech industry has coasted on it's hypergrowth story for decades, a story laden with as many bubbles as actual industries that sprang up. All the good ideas are done now. All the products anyone actually needs exist, are enshittified, and are selling user data to anyone who will pay, including products that exist solely to remove your data from everyone who bought it and probably then sell it to some other people.
This shit is stupid at this point. All Silicon Valley has to do is to grow up into a mature industry with sensible business practices and sustainable models of generating revenue that in most other industries would be fantastic, and they're absolutely apoplectic about this. They are so addicted to the easy, cheap services that upended entire other industries and made them rich beyond imagining that they will literally say, out loud, with their human mouths, that it is a bad, undesirable thing to simply have a business that makes some money.
The people at the top of this industry are literally fucking deranged and should be interred at a psychiatric facility for awhile for their and everyone else's good.
If you're not the shareholder, you're the product.
The business model of any publicly traded corporation, at least in 2025, is to increase the value of its circulating stock. No more and no less. The nominal business model of the company is a cover story to make line go up. The reason why the stock price matters is because of access to capital markets: if a business wants to buy another business, they are not going to dip into the cash on hand. They are going to take out a loan, and that loan is collateralized by... the value of the business. Which is determined by the stock price.
So if you can keep the line going up, you can keep buying competitors. But if you act like a normal, mature business, you can't.
Profit as a concept is a concern for capitalism. But these businesses are not interested in capitalism, they're angling to become the new lords of a growing feudal economy. That's what "going meta" really means.
Right on. You might like the Better Offline podcast by Ed Zitron, although the two of you seem to be so closely aligned that you might not learn anything new.
>All Silicon Valley has to do is to grow up into a mature industry with sensible business practices
Negative sum game: Growing up is easy if it doesn't kill you. The problem with being ethical when everyone else is unethical is that you'll likely go broke.
The next issue is we're seeing, is not that Silicon Valley is ever going to improve, but the bullshit is spreading to eat up every other industry in the US. Engaging in outright fraudulent behavior is A'ok in the US (I mean we even elected a president convicted on a pile of counts of fraud).
Effectively industries cannot manage themselves, we need regulations to prevent them from being bastards. Problem, we elect bastards that cannot keep from committing fraud themselves.
I mean, want is a strong word, but I'm very much okay with paying creators I follow. I have a patreon account with about 22 subscriptions from 1-50 dollars, because what they create enhances my life.
> For example, your average techy YouTuber just doing cool geeky stuff, 50% of viewers block ads and <1% become patreon/other paying subs. This comes under some kind of misplaced guise that if everyone blocks ads, geeky YouTuber will work for free.
First sentence is correct, the second is patently ridiculous. I don't block ads because I think people should work for free: I block ads because every virus I've ever gotten has been delivered to me via an ad network that's not properly vetting what's being pushed to it, and to save incredible amounts of mobile data, and to prevent my phone from getting (as) hot in my hand.
The creator who's page I'm looking at is not even a factor in this calculus. I don't care. If you put up your stuff and are monetizing via ads only and I bounce off that and you earn nothing, oh well. Put it behind a proper paywall then, just, not my problem boss.
> The Internet needs a level headed reconciliation with "the beast".
The Internet, collectively, has been in an abusive relationship with this beast since it's inception. And yeah we got a bunch of free-at-point-of-use services out of it. Okay? I didn't ask Facebook to exist. I didn't request Twitter, I wasn't simply dying of lack of Linked-In. In fact my life would be better if many of these things closed up shop tomorrow and fucked right off.
In time immemorial, it was normal to host VBulletin forums, your own static website, run a BBS, an ICQ server or TeamSpeak server, or whatever for literally nobody. We had no idea if any damn one was reading what we wrote back then, but we wrote anyway because as most people do in one way or another, we felt the drive to create and to share, and then as the internet evolved and the tools became more successful, we built communities, we built forums, we built email lists, all kinds of decentralized, albiet limited, ways to remain in contact with likeminded people.
It was the monoliths who came onto the scene, stuffed to the gills with VC money, who suddenly gave us Facebook, Reddit, Twitter, all the rest of the websites of which there are like 6 now that everything is on. They showed up, and provided free services in exchange for our data. We didn't ask for that, they gave it freely. And now a couple decades on-ish they're finding out that monetizing user data, which has been the go-to excuse for all that time, doesn't really pay the bills and most of them are either losing money or are selling their souls to anyone who will purchase ad space, which is why ads are basically all scams now.
Ad companies have spent the better part of my life digging their own graves and I'm very excited to watch them lay down in them. Rest in piss. The Internet lived before the Platforms, and it will survive them.
reply