It's not the ads, but they're not helping. I still like to go to theaters, but am thinking if not going anymore because I can't really take it. I don't go to AMC since not in the US, but where I go you can't even skip them because you never know how long it will be. I sat once for literally 40 minutes. It's also crazy expensive. So they need to do these things to stay afloat, but they're driving away the last people that still want to go.
It's just dead in its current form, you're right about that. To make it work they need to reinvent themselves. But it's hard.
I don't disagree with you at all. Ads suck. But that ship sailed a long time ago. Just to provide some more context to AMC.
They are a US national chain and they don't run "commercials" just lots of trailers. They have recently announced that they have extended the trailer runtime from 20-25 mins to 35-40 mins. While this is frustrating they always indicate in the app which movies have the trailers (most do) and the approx length. As a result, patron who want to skip the trailers use the app for guidance and just arrive +35 mins after the showtime. Example: https://i.imgur.com/bsVf6AE.png
Given this system, I dont think AMC has really lost patrons because of the ads since everyone who hates them know exactly how long to delay their entrance to the movie room. It really is the other factor I mentioned (they are not compelling enough most of the time vs other entertainment).
One more aspect I forgot to mention is concession prices. Small popcorn is ~10$, small drink is ~7$ so ~17$ for basic concessions and that does not include ticket price ranging between 5$ on Tuesday special deals for standard definition all the way to $27.99+ for premium screen. If you are going to the movies you might as well watch it on their best screen. It gets expensive if you are bringing family. The reason for this pricing is the studio. They actually take a majority of the ticket revenue and they refuse to lower their percentage of ticket prices on the marquee titles (and also require 2 week minimum contracts in the premium screens even if the movie is a stinker)
The theaters are essentially just popcorn/soda vendors who just happen to show movies on the side.
They do also run actual commercials if you're crazy enough to show up before the showtime.
AMC is also interesting because even in the "real" trailer period they have a long ad for AMC itself but also for Coke, then another for themselves telling you to sign up for the loyalty programs, then another for themselves with Nicole Kidman in the theater with her suit with the silver pinstripes. A little thing for the theater is normal but they're going way overboard with it and it's hard to believe it's really effective.
It really seems like a great use case for dynamic pricing.
For $27.99 I can usually get MLB tickets people are dumping last minute (face value starts a few dollars higher) and can always get AAA baseball tickets for less than that.
That dynamism to the pricing helps a lot of people get into the door to those events and I'm sure it helps them milk additional profit out of very interesting games.
I know you say it's the studios setting the price. Why do they seem indifferent to the impending bankruptcy of theaters?
Well $27.99 is for IMAX/Dolby/other premium format. Thats the hook I guess. People do shell out but only for the big blockbuster. The other movies are like the stuff you can watch using your Netflix account so a lot of non franchise movies have shifted direct to Netflix.
>I know you say it's the studios setting the price. Why do they seem indifferent to the impending bankruptcy of theaters?
They are pushing their streaming platforms and using the content as just a hook for other more lucrative sources of revenue(ie. Disney and theme parks). Do they really need the theaters now that people are hooked on streaming?
Yes, that's what I meant with crazy expensive, mostly the concessions. The tickets I am ok with, I am in th end going there for the big screen and experience, not to eat crappy food. I go with my kids, and it's just painful. We watched Mario 2 recently, and because my youngest didn't watch the first one, we watched that one at home first. 3.99 to rent 4k and 2.50 for popcorn and drinks for three kids. Puts things in perspective.
In the UK in the 1980s (and with more difficulty in the 90s) I would phone the theater and ask when the film actually starts, even though it was almost always 20 minutes after the advertised programme time. Now there are no humans to ask, and my wife wants to see the entire programme anyway.
AMC have taken to just saying outright that everything will start 25-30 minutes after the posted time. Which is interesting, I guess they're trying to blunt the negative effect of the long trailers but I'm sure the advertisers don't like it.
It's useless for the example given because obfuscating JavaScript as protection no longer has any purpose, if you can let AI analyze the code, and/or in this case the API requests.
I recently did use a variation of this type of security to prevent a malicious user misusing our services... But I made a not to me an everyone else it was just a quick fix not guaranteed to work long term.
You would also find other results (this assumes what you're searching for is not a random made up thing). The issue with LLMs is IMHO bigger because it will give you answers as a matter of fact without any other consideration.
Correct. Funny enough though, their corporate structure and the name AG means they do have stocks, but they are not traded and 100% privately owned. For some reason I see this often with German companies, e.g. the German railway. Not sure why that is, although for the railway plausible since they are owned by the state that might eventually want to sell parts of it.
Zeiss and Schott are both owned in their entirety by a foundation that is not allowed to sell shares. Most of the dividends go to larger research institutions in southern Germany (about $80 million to Heidelberg, Stuttgart, Tübingen, Freiburg, Ulm, Mainz, Jena).
I believe the two applicable options to have a company that counts as its own "person" is either AG or GmbH (~= LLC / "limited").
There is also SE which is a EU form for an AG, and various "partnership" forms that involve a partner that's fully liable. Usually, that partner is not an actual person but a "legal person", i.e. another SE or GmbH.
Even if you're not listed on a stock market, you might want to take on investments, e.g. "give me 10 million for 5% of the company" and I assume the latter is much easier with an AG.
An AG corporation has stocks in order to track who owns how much and also attach different economic and voting rights to different classes of stock. The other way to incorporate a limited-liability company in Germany is the GmbH, which tracks ownership directly in the articles of incorporation, but are in other ways subject to way lower management, disclosure and accounting requirements. So the AG is mostly useful if you want it to be easy to change your ownership structure, if you for instance raise capital from new investors, issue employee shares, change cross-ownership within a conglomerate or go public some day.
Why Carl Zeiss is an AG I don't know. The West German Carl Zeiss was re-formed as a GmbH in 1946, but had changed to an AG by 1973. The East German Carl Zeiss was turned into a GmbH during reunification and then split in two. One part merged into the West German Carl Zeiss AG and the other is now called Jenoptik. Jenoptik was converted into an AG in 1996 and went public in 1998. AFAICT Carl Zeiss has been privately owned by the Carl Zeiss-Stiftung since 1889, except of course for the temporary East German part.
AFAIK that’s how incorporated companies work in Europe.
Here in Sweden we have A LOT of companies own and operated by state and local government and they’re all “aktiebolag” which literally translates to “stock companies”. For smaller businesses you can register as a sole proprietor and some other odd structures if you are a group of people. You’ll often see the same thing for non-profits as well.
I can't not write the tired comment of how ridiculous it is to criticize AI and then use AI to write your article. It's tired, but so is this writing style.
For the actual problem, I fear this can't be solved by warning people, the pain will need to be felt. The system we live in, basically free market capitalism, cannot do anything else except local optimization. Maybe it's for the best, I don't know. The alternative of top down planning wouldn't have this problem, but it would have other problems. I work for a mid size somewhat luxury brand, and the major goal right now is cost cutting and AI for efficiency everywhere instead of using it to create better products or better ways to reach out customers. When I think about who will buy our luxury products if all jobs were optimized out of existence, I don't have an answer, but again I think the pain will need to be felt to change course.
There is an old New York Times article (90s) that makes the same conclusion. The only real way to reduce the issue is to eat then more often. Personally never had big issues with beans. What's far worse for me is anything with a high inulin content. I feel physical pain from bloating when eating that.
I learned to swim at an older age and my instructor told me this because at the time a person died screwing around in a boat with his family. Jumped into the water on a hot day and dived for fun, but never came back up.
While your statement is true your graph is misleading for two reasons.
1) comparison of spent energy for fossil fuels vs electricity is not a good way to do it because electric motors use less for the same output. Compare kWh per 100km for an ICE car and EV. Electrification will lead to a drop simply because of this
2) the graph is global, we have seen energy consumption go down in the developed world. E.g. the EU now uses less electricity than 20 years ago.
> comparison of spent energy for fossil fuels vs electricity is not a good way to do it because electric motors use less for the same output. Compare kWh per 100km for an ICE car and EV. Electrification will lead to a drop simply because of this
Yes but there are losses in generating electricity, and in transmitting it as well. If you only measure from energy in your car's battery to motion you're right, but I don't think that's a useful measure.
Then you also have to account for losses in drilling oil, shipping it to a refinery, refining it into gasoline or diesel, shipping it to a distribution hub, then to a gas station. And all the electricity consumed in doing that. And the navy and coast guard ships that need to patrol all the oceans to keep the oil tankers safe. And...
Yes, and the same for building and fuelling the power station I suppose. That's why I'm saying you need to pick a sensible point to compare efficiency at.
There are no losses in generating from solar which is the topic of the article. There is no loss since there is no fuel. There is a loss in transmission but not enough to offset the roughly 4x reduction in energy use. As the other person also pointed out, there is the same loss in transmission for e.g. combustion engines. You don't pour the gasoline that came out of your back yard. It's extracted and processed for most of the world somewhere very far away and then transported. If anything, the losses in electricity are less than the energy required to transport these huge amounts of fossil fuels.
One can argue that the US and Europe have maintained a low energy consumption by de-indusrializing and having China produce all the energy (largely with coal!) to manufacture their goods instead of manufacturing it themselves.
1) Is a lot more complicated as well. A simple ICE vs EV comparison ignores electric grid generation efficiency and transmission losses as well as the massive energy cost of manufacturing the battery.
> One can argue that the US and Europe have maintained a low energy consumption
The US has not "maintained a low energy consumption". US total energy consumption is the second highest in the world, at 2x third (India), 3x fourth (Russia), 5x fifth (Japan), and 6x sixth (India). It was first until China overtook it in 2008. Here's a line graph from 1965-2024 of those 6 countries [1].
> A simple ICE vs EV comparison ignores electric grid generation efficiency and transmission losses as well as the massive energy cost of manufacturing the battery
Does it take into account the "massive energy cost" of manufacturing the ICE vehicle then?
Or the gasoline generation efficiency and transmission losses? Or the economic impacts of oil pollution? Getting oil from the ground to the pump isn't free either.
The ecological impact of mining and refining of rare earths, used for permanent magnets in EV motors or in electric generators - wind turbines, is quite large.
> The ecological impact of mining and refining of rare earths, used for permanent magnets in EV motors or in electric generators - wind turbines, is quite large.
I don't think I ever said otherwise. FWIW I think cars are bad. Full stop. If they have to exist, electric cars appear to have fewer externalities.
Yes, if cars then electric. But much more importance should be placed on public transport. Air-travel should be in many cases replaced with high speed, electric trains.
> The ecological impact of mining and refining of rare earths... is quite large
There's obviously no ecological impact of mining and refining fossil fuel. The Deepwater Horizon actually reduced the amount of oil in the ocean.
And unlike batteries, which are non-recyclable and always have been. It's common to throw the lead-acid battery from ICE vehicles into the nearest body of water, for example. It's definitely not the case that 99% of them are recycled today. Whereas recycling coal and oil is trivial and done all the time. /s
"Although efforts to enforce regulations in the United States have ramped up and cleanup is underway at some sites, many lead-acid batteries from the United States are exported to the Global South, where companies continue to cause harmful public health disasters, and US automotive companies subsequently purchase the recycled lead."
> BP was fined billions for Deepwater Horizon because it affected US public.
Great, all better in that case. And that's the only time oil and gas extraction and shipping ever caused environmental issues. It's totally clean the rest of the time.
> Most in US don't know that recycling of lead-acid batteries from ICE vehicles is outsourced to Africa... and US automotive companies subsequently purchase the recycled lead
They can be recycled, but much more discussion in public should be done about who pays the ecological price of recycling, mining, refining. For example US automotive companies should be fined for outsourcing recycling of lead-acid batteries to Africa.
Others have touched on the other points, but I would like to point out also that China using 2x the energy with 4x the population speaks more in favour of China than the US. The US also uses fossil fuels to generate more than half of its electricity, and has done so for a long time. Germany for example transitioned from coal to renewables, whereas the US went from coal to natural gas. China is following a similar pattern as Germany.
Overall there is no 100% clean source, there is something dirty in the chain everywhere. The main question for me is, is one thing an improvement over the other, is the improvement massive or modest? I think the improvement is massive and am hopeful for the future. This doesn't mean you can never improve, but I think this is already happening. For instance I saw an estimate from the Rocky Mountain Institute that they expect no further mining of lithium for batteries because it will be recycled. I obviously don't know if this is true, but even if lithium mining is environmentally unfriendly, if it's an improvement over what we have now, and if we can down the road get rid of that too, it's a positive development.
I started using it a few years ago when I moved to my current company, and have to say I've learned to like it quite a bit. Moving to Cloudflare is an option, but currently it just works so we can't be bothered. Costs are not nothing, but basically no issues with it until now, and it's not so expensive that it raises eyebrows with the biggest being that we have 3 seats. The setup is quick and again it just works. We are a very small team, and the fact we don't have to deal with it on a daily/weekly basis is valuable. Obviously this current situation is a problem, but I am not sure which platform is free of issues like these. People act like it can't happen to me, until it does.
It's just dead in its current form, you're right about that. To make it work they need to reinvent themselves. But it's hard.
reply