My question is are there any historical parallels for the slide toward authoritarianism being reversed without a major catastrophe/war.
There were many "ground rules" in American society and politics that Trump has just proved can be thrown completely out the window, and it feels like there is no unringing that bell.
This is also kinda wrong because the downside can be a lot more than your marketing spend if people really hate your ad. Just look what happened when Budweiser decided to send a personalized Bud Light can to a transgender person. For the Superbowl specifically, I can't imagine the "Search Party" ad helped Amazon sell more Rings.
Yeah but this is footnote territory. The idea of a cap is more appropriate for most advertisers. There’s a minor chance you miscalculate and the cap dissolves. It kind of goes without saying as that always applies, possibly can have high magnification if too far off the mark.
Or Gillette. Or Jaguar. Wrong sort of advertising can provably destroy your brand image among your consumers. Social media helps to amplify things in both directions. So you really need to know your audience's current mindset. Or wrong move could lead to losing lot more than just any money and manpower spend on the ad.
The irony is that this especially true for Coca Cola. They are basically an advertising company at heart. They sell flavored sugar water. For all the hype about "are you a coke person or a Pepsi person", in blind tests most people can't tell the difference between coke and generic cola. The billions they spend in marketing annually helps ensure they can sell their flavored sugar water for a lot more than Aldi sells their store brand flavored sugar water.
I don't know, I can distinguish between Coca-Cola and Pepsi-Cola easily. I prefer Diet Coke, FWIW.
I also now have a bottle of Lab Cola from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TDkH3EbWTYc and it _is_ indistinguishable from regular Coca-Cola to me. So it might be plausible in case of a deliberate Coca-Cola knock-off?
I also "can" and so can my siblings but I actuallly stopped drinking sugar water but my siblings don't so they are "passionate" about coke and "hate" Pepsi for some reason. I don't understand
Pepsi is disgusting to me. To even speak of them as substitutes is outrageous to me. If you like it fine. I like both mayo and mustard but if someone doesn’t like mayo I don’t recommend it as a substitute for mustard.
What's funny is kind of the reverse is also true: when people were given the exact same cola but one was labeled Coke and the other Pepsi, not only did they say they preferred Coke, but fMRI brain scans should more prefrontal cortex activation for the Coke as well: https://medium.com/@marketingoal/the-pepsi-vs-cola-cola-expe... . That's the power of branding.
That blinded test isn't about telling the difference though, it's knowing which is which, a significantly harder thing to do without practice. And I don't know how many of the participants regularly drink any of the brands, which makes identification even harder.
Have you done a blind test before? A group of friends and I have done a blind test of around 10 coke brands before. The only ones you could reasonably tell apart were Pepsi and some dubious organic cokes. But of all the ones that actually try to replicate the coca cola flavour it was just pure guesswork on our side.
I did a blind taste test of Starry, Sprite, and 7-Up the other day. My wife was amused when I nailed all three. As a recovering fat guy, I’m a bit of a soft drink connoisseur (diet soda now!).
Unfortunately then the question became “well, which do you prefer?” And my answer was “I have no idea”.
And you must have a long position if you're going to cherry pick so egregiously. The other incidents from that same paragraph that you conveniently left out:
* a collision with a fixed object at 17 miles per hour
* a crash with a truck at four miles per hour
* two cases where Tesla vehicles backed into fixed objects at low speeds.
So in the 5 cases listed in that paragraph, 3 of them were when a Tesla hit a stationary object. Hitting a stationary object should be like the last thing I would think an autonomous vehicle would have trouble with, but if you got rid of lidar and radar because Elon had a fever dream, maybe it's not so unexpected.
I understand what you're getting at, and I can appreciate it, but it's also kind of bullshit. You say "instruments have a sort of soul and that can inspire musicians which leads to better sound" - well, if that's the case, then people should be able to hear the difference in that sound in blind tests, which so far they basically haven't.
But a cello is not a machine on which you press one button and then one sound comes out. You can't just press the button on both machines and then check which makes the better sound. Playing a cello is a feedback loop between the instrument, musculature, nerves/brains, emotions, culture.... It's not unthinkable to me that something like that would take a couple decades of work by highly skilled people to lead to an extraordinary outcome.
I agree with everything you've said. It's also completely irrelevant to the question at hand, which is whether there are any real, noticeable physical differences between the sound produced by a Strad and that produced by expert modern luthiers.
I certainly appreciate all the emotions and culture that go into making beautiful music on a cello. But it's important to separate that placebo affect ("I think it sounds better because I know it's a Strad"), from the real physical differences, because people have gone to great lengths to find "the secret of Strad": was it his varnish, the Maunder Minimum, an extended drought, special wood treatment to prevent woodworm, etc. etc. Except time and time again we find there is no "Strad secret", beyond his expert craftsmanship, attention to detail, and fundamental changes he made to the shape of the plates of his instruments compared to his predecessors.
>whether there are any real, noticeable physical differences between the sound produced by a Strad and that produced by expert modern luthiers.
Isn't this trivially true? I'm sure if you hook up both cellos to a bowing robot using many permutations of contact point, fingering, speed, pressure and angle, and record the sound, it would be possible to consistently discern them through spectral analysis or something. Is the claim that if an expert modern luthier reproduces a stradivarius he can get it so close as to measure identically?
edit: by the way
>I agree with everything you've said. It's also completely irrelevant to the question at hand, which is whether there are any real, noticeable physical differences between the sound produced by a Strad and that produced by expert modern luthiers.
I don't know why you would say my post is irrelevant to that question. You said "people should be able to hear the difference in that sound in blind tests", and I'm saying that the difference between two cellos could be more complicated than just listening to one after the other for some minutes and filling in a questionnaire.
I guess another way of putting it would be that the aura of an instrument that elicits a more sentimental playing of it by the musician is sort of not really interesting or relevant because you can just lie about any instrument to elicit it.
No, I am not talking about aura at all, I'm just saying that the physical, measurable sound that an instrument produces in response to being played, physically and measurably, could have more subtle effects on artistic performance (as a consequence of the physical vibrations of the object and the way those vibrations respond to the player and vice versa) than those that could be elided in an afternoon of A/B-testing under the banner of "stradivarius myth DEBUNKED".
In controlled tests the instruments are played by highly skilled musicians (usually the ones that possess them) but they don't know which instrument they are playing. Musicians cannot perfectly reproduce their performance so statistical methods are used to separate the effect from the noise, just like every other scientific experiment.
There have been both. Here is a famous example from around 1977 I believe that was broadcast on the BBC (I knew of this example but this is the first time I actually found a recording of the broadcast): https://www.baroquemusic.org/violincomparison.html . The violinist playing is Manoug Parikian, who presumably knew which instrument was which, and neither Isaac Stern nor Pinchas Zukerman (both world class soloists) nor Charles Beare (a famous luthier described as "the most esteemed authenticator in the world" by the NYTimes) could identify which violin was which.
Stradivarius instruments deserve being put on a pedestal for historical reasons. Stradivari basically defined the sound of the modern violin, using flatter arching and f holes with smaller hole areas than the Amatis, which resulted in a significantly more powerful instrument that was better suited to playing in a concert hall (vs. the chamber music of earlier times). Stradivarius violins are also noted for their extremely fine craftsmanship and attention to detail. The majority of modern violins are still modeled after Stradivarius examples (with a probably smaller number modeled after del Gesu instruments and some other makers). Most top soloists play on (heavily modified) Strads, and so it seems pretty clear that, at the very least, Strads are not holding any soloists back - and that is not the case for Amati instruments, for example, which despite being coveted for their age and history just don't have the same power and sound projection as Strads.
But, as other comments have said, there have been at this point a good slew of blind tests, and Strads are hardly ever recognized better than chance when compared to modern instruments, even when played by experts and judged by experts. People have been studying and modeling after Strads for so long it would be pretty shocking if we couldn't make instruments that sounded as good. In my mind that doesn't make Strads any less valuable - an original Picasso is still valued so highly because it was created by the master that invented Cubism, but that doesn't mean that a modern painter couldn't create a Cubist painting that was "just as good", objectively.
> But, as other comments have said, there have been at this point a good slew of blind tests, and Strads are hardly ever recognized better than chance when compared to modern instruments, even when played by experts and judged by experts.
Others are also commenting about audiophiles. But there's a big difference: an audiophile's sentiment about their gold wires doesn't change the sound coming out of the speakers for the rest of the listening audience. On the other hand, a violinist's sentiment typically does.
Also, just to be clear-- are you saying there are blind tests where an expert tried playing multiple violins and couldn't guess better than chance which one was the Strad?
> Also, just to be clear-- are you saying there are blind tests where an expert tried playing multiple violins and couldn't guess better than chance which one was the Strad?
Yeah I completely understand the value of the Stradivarius as a work of art. My question was more functional and it seems like the vast majority of the value comes from it being art and not from being functionally better than something we can make today.
There is another factor in bieng chosen as the current player of any instrument such as a Stradivarius, the moment they are handed there charge and told,there is the door, go, must produce a level of focus not encountered in most peoples lives.
I'm glad this comment was here, it was the first thing I latched on to that seemed very specific to this person (or at least uncommon amongst general "podcast guys").
In particular, check out the pronunciation of the trailing S is the word "this" at 28 seconds in the clip of Davide Greene compared to 24 seconds in the Notebook LM clip. Really seemed uncannily similar to me.
That doesn't appear to be accurate, at least from the Wikipedia article.
Robert Bork (sorry to add my personal commentary but an absolute shit stain of a human being) was nominated for the Supreme Court (which, thankfully, he always not confirmed), and a reporter went to a video rental store and asked for his rental history, which there was no law against. The published article didn't include much, as Bork hadn't rented any particularly salacious material, but there was bipartisan outrage that this had occurred.
Just goes to show how far we've fallen when there was once bipartisan outrage over accessing your Blockbuster rental history, when tech giants now have 10 times as much surveillance on you - your 1 am "shower thoughts" in your search history, all the websites you've visited, all your social media posts, and even social media posts about/including you posted by someone else, everything you've ever commented on a blog forum, your location history, etc.
Obviously there is a ton unsaid in this blog post, but I just wanted to answer your question because it's exceedingly common for companies to be sold, sometimes for lots of money, and for common stock (which is what employees hold) to get wiped out. If the startup was sold for $350 million, but it received $350 or more million in funding, the investors get (some of) their money back, and employees get nothing. This happens all the time.
Again, I don't know what happened in the author's specific case, but think it's important to know that lots of startups have exits that can look big on paper but still are a wipeout for common equity.
What's incredible to me are comments, like yours, that are saying that somehow the system failed this person, just based on this blog post. When in fact:
1. He was given food and shelter, which he declined - most of his comments about the food are that it's too sugary.
2. He makes it sound like he was offered more permanent shelter in Feb of 2025, which he also declined.
To be clear, I'm not making a judgment about this person - and, for that matter, the comment you replied to didn't seem to be making a judgment either, just stating a reasonable conclusion that the author suffered from mental illness.
So I'd like to know what additional resources you think would have changed this person's circumstances?
> I'm not making a judgment about this person [...] just stating a reasonable conclusion that the author suffered from mental illness.
You're not making a judgment, but are somehow able to diagnose mental illness from a blog post? Wild.
It's far easier to conclude that the system has failed this person, as it habitually fails millions of people in the US, in these same circumstances. Are they all mentally ill?
And even if mental health is an issue, does that mean that they are somehow less worthy of assistance? That it's OK for a human being to live under a bridge?
The level of self-righteousness and lack of empathy in your comments is baffling.
> You're not making a judgment, but are somehow able to diagnose mental illness from a blog post? Wild.
The author literally talks about his "psychosis" that led him to his predicament, so no, I don't think it's a judgment, just the ability to read.
> And even if mental health is an issue, does that mean that they are somehow less worthy of assistance?
I have no idea where you seem to get this idea. My point is that, at least in this author's case, he has received assistance. He discusses 2 separate instances in this post where he declined resources and support - he is living under a bridge because he specifically rejected the shelter that was offered him.
Could the process of getting people support be better? Of course, but his experience dealing with the pains of bureaucracy doesn't seem much different that bureaucratic slights we all, rich and poor, have to deal with when trying to get assistance from government. FWIW I especially liked his "I identify as a woman" comment in order to get a shower.
> The level of self-righteousness and lack of empathy in your comments is baffling.
The only self righteousness I see on display is your belief that everyone else is so uncaring because we don't necessarily think the government should force this person into a shelter. I'm not judging the author at all, but I'm certainly judging you.
There were many "ground rules" in American society and politics that Trump has just proved can be thrown completely out the window, and it feels like there is no unringing that bell.
reply