Yes! In fact, one at least one occasion, Kubrick proclaimed that Eraserhead was his favorite movie of all time. It blows my mind that Lynch made Eraserhead while he was still in school - imagine having your student film receive that sort of acclaim from the arguably the most respected director in the world.
I think you're missing the point of what Teenage Engineering is trying to do. For as simple as the Korg Vulca series is, it's still an synthesizer first. You need to have some familiarity with electronic instruments to understand the controls of the Monotron that you mention:
Pitch
Rate
Int.
Cutoff Peak
Compare that to the controls on the Pocket Operator:
Sound
Pattern
BPM
FX
Play
Write
If you were handed one of these with no experience making music, which one would you be more likely to get started with? Heck, the Pocket Operator even has cute animations that go with your beats!
I have tremendous respect for Korg, but I think Teenage Engineering is prioritizing fun and accessibility in a way that I haven't seen in my 30 years of making music. This may be a fluff PR piece, but I think they deserve a ton of credit for making something as intimidating as electronic instruments so downright fun and adorable.
If you play with a Monotron, you very quickly learn what those five knobs do. You might not understand on an intellectual level what terms like "LFO rate" and "VCF cutoff" mean, but you develop an intuitive understanding of what they do to the sound. If you then go out and buy a Volca Keys or a Minilogue or pretty much any subtractive synthesiser, you already know how to use several of the most important controls.
If you play with a Pocket Operator, you don't learn very much of anything except how to use that particular Pocket Operator; the interface is too idiosyncratic, the details of the synth engine too effectively concealed.
>If you play with a Pocket Operator, you don't learn very much of anything except how to use that particular Pocket Operator; the interface is too idiosyncratic, the details of the synth engine too effectively concealed.
For me, that's the fun part. I like traditional subtractive synthesis, too, but there are many ways to implement synthesizers, and there's no reason they all have to follow the same standards.
All it takes with the KORG is for one to play. All else follows fairly naturally. And there is a bonus! KORG does introduce one technically, and correctly with the words and concepts of record. That KORG experience adds up. People who explored their fun toys, who happen to encounter a bigger device will find things familiar.
These devices are cool, don't get me wrong, but the people talking KORG up as being early leaders here have a very solid case.
This is a great follow on, and a bit different approach. Fine.
To me, anything in this direction is awesome. Sound is fun. Music is fun. Play! (We probably live longer when we do.)
I do not think this will go well for Google. They are not dealing with one or two companies going after them - we're talking about dozens companies building out cases over years that show potential anti-competitive behavior. Google will have to address each of these individually, and as long as one sticks, I think the dominoes start to fall. Think about all of the industries Google has entered over the years - travel, retail, real estate, news - these are all industries that have players with deep pockets, and mountains of data. It's totally worth the cost of going all-in if it means either they get a settlement, or Google has to make fundamental changes to their products, and/or ad network.
That's why I wish they'd start making them again. My interest in the TB500 has nothing to do with scarcity or collectibility—I think they're practical guitars for heavy usage. They seem almost unbreakable and they have a utilitarian quality.
I think the ambiguity is kind of the point. If things were written out ("doing X is monopolistic"), then it would be easy for companies to operate in an noncompetitive manner, so long as they don't violate specific laws. Plus, the definitions of things like monopolies vary so much across industries, that it would be impossible to come up with specifics that cover every instance of anti-trust violations. I don't think it's perfect, but I do think it's more effective than the alternatives.
OP alleges that the given rules are used for abusive judcement. You miss the point and opine that it works as intended. In sum, there's the funny argument that abuse is intended :D
We had a similar (but thankfully, less serious) thing happen with Rover. We booked a dog sitter for 4 days with a woman named "Leslie". When we showed up to "Leslie's" place, the lady who we met did not match the person in the photo, and barely spoke any english. We were on our way to the airport, so I really didn't have a choice at that point but to leave our dog (I realize now I should have done more vetting, or met this individual in-person ahead of time, but the person I booked - Leslie - had dozens of positive reviews). After dropping off our dog, we received extremely vague updates/text messages over the next few days, and no photos. Things like - "Your dog is doing great", "he is behaving so well", etc... Whenever I asked for a photo, they would say they'd send one the next day.
Needless to say, it became obvious that whoever was watching our dog was not the person we were communicating with. Thankfully, our dog doesn't have special medication, or a specific diet that we needed to monitor. Who knows what would have happened if there was an emergency, and we needed to get in touch with one another.
These services like Wag and Rover have literally one job, and that is to make sure you trust the individuals watching your pet. The response from Rover was completely thoughtless, and it was clear they were going to do nothing to investigate the situation. The fact that they don't care that people like this woman who clearly has some sort of questionable scheme going on just shows how little they care about protecting their customer's pets.
> These services like Wag and Rover have literally one job, and that is to make sure you trust the individuals watching your pet.
I think this is where the key incentive misalignment is. These companies are rent-seeking, meaning they have a strong incentive to lower marginal costs. Vetting has to be the largest component of that so it's likely to be cut (or just dropped entirely). But the vetting is the entire point of the exercise, so what you end up with is a company that pretends it vets people but (I suspect) doesn't really. So the profit margin is bolstered by false advertising.
The vetting is 'crowd-sourced' with customer reviews, no? If 'Bill' thinks 'Leslie' is a great walker... what more should wag or rover need to do? Vet Bill now too!? That's just crazy talk...
Currently the problem arises if the reviews are owned and hosted by the company in question.
You can find tons of complains about the quality of Amazon products. And now there is a need for external tools like fakespot.com to find fake reviews. It wouldn't have taken Amazon much to build a similar service.
The amazing thing about smaller markets like Wag and Rover is that even if there are negative reviews you are not going to find them. There will be tons of 4-5 rated walkers but you will be hard pressed to find people who are rated 2-3. The reason being that customers don't want 2-3 rated walkers and it is in the interest of the company to show all high rated walkers.
It's not in the interest of the marketplace actor, like Wag, to see negative reviews, so I would not be surprised if Leslie's rating was doctored somehow. For example with Uber I had a couple of bad experiences with the driver not picking me up but starting to charge me, and I had to settle for getting my money back but could not leave a review because technically I did not ride with the driver.
I would think it would be beneficial for the marketplace to see negative reviews, because they will direct customers to the reliable dogwalkers, leading to greater customer satisfaction and retention. Badly reviewed dogwalkers could be bumped off the platform.
only if the company ensures that "Leslie" is one profile that is attached to one person. Reputation only works if it follows you, if you can create a new account or masquerade as another person (like in this case) then it doesn't work at all.
there should also be a certain barrier to entry so that e.g. people more likely to do something criminal or negligent instead won't get on the platform in the first place.
I think you are correct. Make people provide photo ID to work and provide a bond. Have someone else show up as you lose the bond.
It's entirely possible that such an id and rep feature could be easily be implemented in a universal fashion outside of their interaction with a particular service.
Don't want your dog walking service or potential clients to discover that while driving with uber you were a complete asshole no problem don't be an asshole.
yeah rent-seeking isn't quite the right term, but I'm not sure what is. The companies basically exist as low-touch facilitators that rely on high volumes and low marginal cost. Does that make it clearer? The reason I called them rent-seeking is that (if you remove the vetting aspect, which I believe they have) they don't actually do anything, they just charge a "tax" on top of a service rendered by someone else. If the company only makes, say, $100 per dogwalker on average and background checking costs $50, they'll cut the cost despite the primary use of the platform being to find a trustworthy, pre-vetted dogwalker.
This is akin to the Airbnb model: tap into people's inherent faculties to determine trust on good packaging ("host guarantee" etc), good branding that makes them look reputable, and good customer service (at least on the service) - but then not give a shit once you look a little bit below the surface, meanwhile building brand recognition and perceived value to exit early investors and founders via an IPO transferring risk to the general public.
Getting VC money and scaling/capturing market share for these businesses artificially seems to be the recipe, the bigger the network effects the better (for them).
Just speculating here, but seems like this "Leslie" could be a person or even group of people who subcontract out the sitting duties to a bunch of people who will do it on the cheap and then send them way more dogs than anyone person should ever be watching.
As another poster said, this wasn't house-sitting, this was basically boarding. This is the problem with dogs as pets: you absolutely have to board them when you go away, or else you have to pay someone to come to your place several times a day to walk them and clean up after them. That's not cheap, and is why boarding exists (the boarding person/company can have a bunch of peoples' dogs all in one place and take care of them all at the same time).
Why anyone wants a pet that costs so much and can't be left alone for a couple of days, and on top of that needs regular bathing and grooming so they don't stink up your home, I have no idea. These animals made a lot of sense for working on farms and living mostly outside (and still do for people who still live that way in rural areas), but for urban environments they really don't.
The pet sitting situation isn't bad at all if you have a strong family or friend network and live near each other and all like dogs. People just casually bring their dogs over to each others house when they won't be home. When I was a teen when my aunts and uncles with pets go on vacation I'd spend the week at their house taking care of their pets.
Without that sort of network, yeah, I don't understand owning a dog either.
I would imagine that placing a camera on a dog in this situation would be pretty illegal in a lot of states, especially if their dog is being card for in another person's home.
Yes most likely it would be illegal in a private residence however in many situations if the individual was advertising doggy day care then the individuals who's pets attend would have the right to record without the consent of the individual unless there was some specific statement in the terms and conditions stating that would be an inappropriate action on their premises which then should lead an individual to reconsider who watches their dog. Would you allow your child to be taken care of by a daycare business would not allow parental surveillance or supervision during any point of the day I would hope not and if in either situation you sign something stating you would not be allowed to surveil your pet or child and you continue using that a service then unfortunately the liability I believe is then on the consumer. Remember the old adage buyer beware. There are some pretty sick human beings in this world who often pray on the weak or innocent and it is the pet owners or parents responsibility make sure that their pet or child is not being abused especially when they are not able to verbally express when atrocities take place!
Sneaking a camera into someones home on your dog would almost certainly be illegal most places. Let the person know that their dog is filming you at all times and you will have no trouble nobody will watch your dog on the condition of your dog filming them.
I'm sure there is a cost at which people would accept that but you probably can't afford it.
I think it's ironic that you were so worried about your dog and thanking that it didn't have any medical requirements because something disastrous could have happened however you left your pet who should be like your child with a complete stranger and not only a complete stranger it's someone who right off the bat appeared to be a fraud! If it were me I would have either canceled my flight or rescheduled my flight because no vacation or leave away from home with an irresponsible possibly psychopathic individual who you have no idea who or what their intentions are you still made the decision being of sound mind to leave your pet with said individual. If something had happened to your pet who would you blame Wag or Rover or would you blame yourself for seeing signs that this was not what you signed up for. I feel like this is exactly the type of situation where people should be accountable for their own pets and or children and not use a company who obviously does not screen their employees to the best of their ability or maybe not at all. Reviews can be faked background checks cannot. You were the one that dropped your pet off and left. I feel like this is exactly the type of situation where people should be accountable for their own pets and or children and not use a company who obviously does not screen their employees to the best of their ability. Unfortunately companies like these who are basically Outsourcing their jobs two people who may possibly have absolutely no qualifications or reason to be doing what their role should have included in the description of the service. However an individual knowing that these services are not held to any standard or requirements unfortunately companies like these who are basically outsourcing their jobs to people who may possibly have absolutely no qualifications or reason to be dealing with what they're all should have included in the description of the service. However an individual knowing that these services are not held to any standard or requirements should out of Common Sense know that is them that needs to do the legwork because the company obviously isn't and is most likely Trading that off for being able to pay little to nothing for their workers because that's exactly what most of them are probably worth.
> ...however you left your pet who should be like your child
Nope, sorry. A pet is a pet. A human child is a human child. The gulf of difference between these two is vast.
I’m fine with you treating your pet like a human child, do what you want with your life etc... but as someone with a pet AND a human child... there’s a fundamental base instinctive difference. Equating the two is completely intellectually dishonest and frankly kinda scary.
It's amazing how many things Best Buy is doing right that have largely gone unnoticed over the last few years. While still not perfect, they've done more than almost any other retailer I can think of to modernize the shopping experience, while leveraging their existing advantages:
* Local Inventory with Google Shopping - if I search for almost any product on Google, Best Buy is usually the only major retailer that shows me local inventory for that product. I can't believe how few major retailers do this. If I search for an external hard drive on Google, I can see right away if I'm able to go down the street and pick it up.
* In Store Pick Up - this is almost as seamless as picking up an order at the Apple Store. Just yesterday I placed an order for in-store pick up at my local Best Buy. 20 minutes later I received a confirmation email that my order was ready, and all I had to do was show my ID when I showed up to the store. No signing a receipt, or making sure I had the credit card I placed the order with. The whole process took less than 3 minutes, and I could even add additional name(s) of people who were authorized to pick it up for me.
* Open-box items - I know these can be hit or miss, but at least with Best Buy you can inspect open box items before deciding to take them home (as opposed to Amazon Warehouse, where you have to go through the process of shipping it back if it's not what you expected). They even have these "outlet items" highlighted on both their app and website, so I can see which Best Buys around me have a specific open box item I'm looking for.
* Geek Squad Protection - this isn't perfect, and it can be expensive, but it's nice to know that if something goes wrong with a large item (such as a TV or appliance), someone will actually come to my house to check it out. They are also very willing to give you a brand new replacement if the repair is going to be expensive or labor intensive. I know I probably sound like an old fogey, but dealing with factory warranties directly through the manufacturer is always such a pain, and they almost never offer a full replacement.
* Best Buy APP - their app is great! It keeps track of all of my orders, and even tells me when something I've bought has an open recall. I think Target is the only company that does a better job combing both the in-store and e-commerce aspects into a single app.
They've also IMO done a good job keeping the in-store experience consistent between locations. I'm sure there are still some locations that have less helpful employees, or less reliable inventory, but this is happening less often for me.
Yes I'd second the comment on local inventory control in general - unlike other box stores with "fuzzy" inventory listed online, Best Buy seems to have a very accurate representation of what is in each store. If I want an item now I have high confidence that when I go there it'll be there for me to pickup.
The CPD and City of Chicago have long operated under their own terms, and they need to be very careful now that there is a national focus on them. The common perception from outsiders of the city has always been "well....that's just Chicago" - think when characters like Rod Blagojevich make it to the national spotlight. With high profile cases of police corruption at the very highest level, I think the "charm" of corrupt politics and government start to go away.
I lived there for 7 years before relocating elsewhere, and at no point did it ever feel like the city was operating on behalf of its residence. There is segregation unlike anything I've seen in any other major city that is entirely ignored, the "startup" culture that they've been trying to cultivate for years is complete BS and at odds with how anti-business the city is, and now people are starting to see what happens when large government organizations go unchecked for decades.
I guess the one silver lining about incidents like this is that it should put some national pressure (and hopefully, accountability) on the CPD. I am aware that things like this happen elsewhere, but having lived in about a half dozen cities in the US, I never felt like the problem was as large and systemic as I observed in Chicago.
https://manytricks.com/witch/