My daughter will be bummed about this news, though I'm glad at least a few are surviving. I don't get why they'd make this content and then just kill it. Is this like "we don't want to support the feature anymore" kind of thing? That doesn't really make sense though because they're leaving some around. Disappointing.
This is one thing that fascinates me about the streaming model.
At some point it boils down to {cost per customer} vs {revenue per customer}.
However, because of residuals, {cost per customer} doesn't scale down as user count scales up. You ammortize the non-residual chunk of production, but that's a weird equation that likely drives the incentives we see playing out.
I'd assume residuals are lower / non-existent on the much-bemoaned formulaic Netflix fodder movies? Hence why they keep getting stuffed in services.
> I'd assume residuals are lower / non-existent on the much-bemoaned formulaic Netflix fodder movies? Hence why they keep getting stuffed in services.
As I understand it, the residuals are for things beyond the original contract. So if you have a broadcast show, that gets paid out. Then it goes to syndication - residuals get paid. Then it goes to streaming - residuals get paid.
> So shows originally produced for broadcast television aren’t an issue. When “Friends,” which was originally an NBC sitcom, generates $1 billion dollars on streaming platforms, the five leads each earn 2%, or $20 million apiece. But a show like “Stranger Things” – produced and owned by Netflix – never goes to a secondary market as long as it is aired only on Netflix, so the stars earn only their original pay.
> The problem, then, comes from the fact that the existing residual model, per the expiring SAG-AFTRA contract, doesn’t take streaming into account.
> In the streaming era, all new shows produced by streaming platforms are concurrently reruns and original runs. Actors want 2% of streaming revenue generated by the show or film to replace this line of income.
>They have to pay the people who were part of the making for having the content available - even if no one streams it.
And no one seems to stream the interactive stuff, so it makes sense to get rid of it. Shame they didn't do the residuals so that they could just keep this stuff around though.
Sort of surprised it doesn't work sort of like Spotify, residuals based on performance. So unused content gets nothing, but also being cheap to have it available.
Spotify works under a royalties for musical performers - not residuals.
Netflix (and all other streamers and broadcasts) work under a residuals system.
Two different groups of content producers (musicians and actors) negotiated different models for how the long tail of licensing the content they helped create worked. Some of the economics of residuals changed with the contract that was negotiated last year with SAG.
> You can use US bank accounts and other institutions.
Recently found out that this is more and more difficult because most banks are requiring 2FA with a US phone number which is difficult to get if you don't live in the states.
> If you actually want practical and safe self driving cars widely deployed
I can't speak for everyone in this thread but personally this sounds like a nightmare. If we're dreaming about possible future worlds that are better than what we have, I'd rather have less or no cars. Much cheaper to maintain, not hackable.
Yes, please may I have some more of the unmitigated freedom to pay a ballooning portion of household income toward a depreciating asset; the absolute pleasure of having to buy government-mandated insurance; the utter relief of participating in one of the most dangerous daily activities; the free choice of being able to salt the earth with CO2 emissions and tire particulate matter; and who can forget the ~socialized~ capitalist federal- and state-built roadways that cities are going bankrupt trying to keep up with funding.
Not to mention the sheer joy of listening to the roar of traffic pretty much everywhere, the cost of sound insulation so that I can sleep at night, the increased medical costs (pollution/obesity/stress), drive through litter, being bullied off the road if you're not in a car, and having to either give way to metal box owners or cross roads at locations intended purely to enable them to move freely. All the while watching endless ads that'd make the Marlboro man blush - endless empty roads and vehicles that wouldn't harm a fluffy bunny. Yep, freedumb.
If we are comparing against cars though this is a no brainer. Cars and trucks are extremely hard on infrastructure while people and bikes are basically free. Go 3D!
So they can merge/not merge but they aren't allowed to talk/not talk? Just because I have an inbox doesn't mean I have to respond to everything that shows up in it.
I never said they were not ‘allowed’ to do anything, I also never said they ‘had’ to do anything. It’s their project and can handle it as they wish- I thought I was pretty clear on that point.
My 7th grade science teacher (hi Mrs. Ericson!) had us make tetratetraflexagons in 1998 and I thought, literally until today, that she had made up that word. She also has us make science-themed dodecahedrons so I guess I should have been clued into the fact that she secretly loved geometry / topology.
