TheActualDevil @ TheActualDevil @sffa.community

Posts

0

Comments

137

Joined

2 yr. ago

My poor understanding of this situation is that, of the team working on it, one guy was like "We need to hold off on publishing until we're 100% sure." Then another guy was like "lol, gonna publish anyway and leave you off the paper." The hesitant guy gets wind and rushes to publish (with everyone included) so as to at least be included in the process.

Also, there's a thing about the first published one only had 3 people on it, making it eligible for a Nobel, but more than that does not qualify.

But overall, I agree! It's not like it being publicized stops them from working on it. They will still be working on it, and it's definitely a step towards progress. Technological process tends to be lots of small improvements to the same system over time until someone comes up with a huge leap. Then the process begins again by constantly improving on that new technology. Hopefully, this is that next huge leap in energy.

Plus, with their process so far published, more people are able to work on it without starting from scratch. It would suck for the original scientists, but be a net good overall if the early publication led to someone else being able to move farther then them because they now have access to it.

Great deal. You get 10 hours pay, they get perpetual use of your likeness for all eternity and you don't have to work ever again! Great deal for somebody.

I mean, he's aware of his popularity and privilege. He's made a few comments clarifying that it wasn't to "stick it to Amazon." He does have a problem with Amazon's business model when it comes to authors as well as the traditional publishing industry's barriers to new authors and he understands that these are people's only real option. He used that clout he has in the industry and his fiscal security to try help open up other avenues for publishing. And yeah, the guy is rich, but not publishing house rich. Printing thousands of books, then distributing them likely takes more liquid cash than he has available. He had a good idea of what it would cost and that's what was asked for on Kickstarter. If he hadn't made that, all the people would have kept their money. If more money was needed, he is rich and could probably cover it. I don't see any risk here that anyone shouldered except for him risking his goodwill with fans.

I try to be skeptical of people. Particularly successful people who have made a lot of money. But from everything I've seen, the man lives his values and seems to be a pretty good guy. For his Kickstarter books, when he was talking to Audible about the audiobook versions, they offered him a very good deal. Then he pushed them to tell what a typical author would get. When he heard how bad a deal that was, he refused.

The man really cares about books and their place in this world. He has been successful and made a lot of money and social power in the industry from decades of writing. Now he's using that to try and make the industry a better place for all writers while also still getting his books to his fans.

And my understanding is that his employees at Dragonsteel have profit sharing as part of their working there, on top of their paychecks. So any money he makes is also distributed throughout the staff. He also seems pretty liberal for a member of the LDS church and has spoken about his views evolving over the years as he's realized the reality around him. He seems like a pretty genuinely good guy doing his best to change the industry for the good of all writers.

Did you have your location services turned on around other people who likely did google that kind of thing? Or connect to the wifi in that house that almost certainly put in a search or 2 for that game? Or people who were there that Google knows you interact with? Did they Google it? Or was it just a very popular thing that was huge in the zeitgeist that day for everyone? We are tracked in so many ways that don't require them having to store and analyze literally every conversation that everyone has (Both sides of the convo as well!)

I would argue that calling a possibly humorous image posted to the internet a meme, is itself a meme in language and has gone past our ability to stop it.

Right, but the reason you run the experiment repeatedly is to test the validity of the hypothesis. You're looking for something different to happen. That's the point behind rerunning the tests.

But, how are you getting other people on board with your actions? How are you convincing others that the thing you think is harmful needs to be stopped? Voting with action requires group solidarity.

Say, we take this post as an example. These companies are doing unethical things, then lying to the public about it's good while raking in dollars. Sure, you and I may see through it, but have you met people? They're idiots and likely to just take everything at face value. You can just quietly shake your head and take your dollars elsewhere while droves of consumers keep giving them money. That's fine. But you haven't actually don anything. Your singular dollars don't have an effect. People have to know about things to act on those things.

That's where complaining comes in! Someone has to sound the alarm for people to take notice and make changes in their own life.

I get it. You're already on board with what this guy is saying and don't need to be informed. But other people do exist. People who may have not heard it phrased in a way that won them over. Circlejerking over an issue is definitely annoying, but I don't know that this single post counts as that. If every post here is just complaining, I'll agree that it should be slowed down. But complaining the second a single person tries to draw attention to as issue is going to get the opposite of the results you claim to want.

Vote with your dollars, don't complain?

Genuinely asking, is that what you're trying to say?

I'm guessing the market will just sort it all out, right?

Don't forget the part where they get back to the Shire and they fight off... just some dudes. Over some tobacco. They've fought orks, goblins, a giant spider and saved the fucking world. But their arc can't be complete without fighting a couple guys in the woods I guess.

Every libertarian thinks every other libertarian isn't really because they don't subscribe to every set of their specific beliefs.

Wait. Is it not about technology, or about hating technology?

You realize that most actors and writers are barely or not at all paid enough to live. This idea of the rich and famous actor is an edge case that you're letting become your whole idea of them because they're exactly that. Famous. But even you have to realize that there are countless others that will be and currently are being affected by the things their striking against. For too many years already writers have been shafted by production companies by hiring them as short term contractors to avoid paying them a fair wage or give them an option for royalties. And when literally everyone in the industry is doing that, then they have no choice if they want to get paid at all.

And being mad because some high profile rich fuckers are participating is insane. Their participation shows just how important it is. They'll be fine. They have millions and they're still out there on the picket line anyway because the things the industry does and wants to make worse is bad for humans. That's what collective action is about and it's beautiful.

But the first blockbuster movie is an arthouse masterpiece that really makes you look deep within yourself and wonder how big a shark could actually be.

Jaws. It was Jaws.

Yeah. Fuck collective action and an entire industry fighting for their own survival. You get yours!

I still see people without color-blindness have trouble distinguishing some shades of red/yellow/orange.

Remember the golden age of memes when the joke was just casual racism?

I can add my own anecdote to this one. One of my cat's is fine with any bowl because he's just very food motivated and will do anything to get to his food at feeding time. The other one, when using a more narrow bowl, would often stop eating normally and scoop out the food with a paw. Once I switched to wide flatter bowls, she scarfs it down without pause. It was clearly bothering her.

While cats vary in their preferences and tolerances, it bothers me that so many people just scoff at this idea. We're caretakers for cats and should do our best to make their lives as reasonably comfortable and enriching as possible. And just because a cat is fine with touching things with their whiskers in some situations doesn't mean they're cool with it in others. Cats are often happy to have you scratch behind their ears, but only when it's invited.

And come on, bowls are cheap. It's not that big of an inconvenience to get them a bowl that could be more comfortable, even if they're tolerating it now.