Thinking you can blast something on social media and your friends and family will see it is an old mentality. Even non super tech-savvy people know now what the algorithms are, and they know that everyone regularly misses updates from everyone else.
And that light connection to people through social media wasn't a thing that created "close friends" anyway. It add to those weak connections that do have value but I doubt many people create intimate friend relationships solely through social media.
Maybe part of the seeming increasing anxiety of society is that we don't have friends in the correct sense and instead we have "friends" in the "just another user ID attached to a database query for your user ID" sense.
He was wrong about some things and right about Zionism. This didn't need to be a random dude's walk through Russell's wikipedia page because there's a perfectly fine link here:
"No people anywhere in the world would accept being expelled en masse from their own country; how can anyone require the people of Palestine to accept a punishment which nobody else would tolerate?" -- Russell
I believe people here are capable of finding an article on Wikipedia on their own. I just highlighted that this person had some opinions that are pretty out there and implying "this is true because this guy said so" is not a good logic.
It's telling that a bunch of my comments were flagged. (The guy who pointedly suggested that I must be a Jew to have this view however wasn't.)
Honest question: Were they expelled, or did they flee? Or some of both?
I think the difference matters. "I'm not living with those people in charge" and then fighting for the better part of a century to throw them out, gets less sympathy from me than "they threw me out".
On the other hand, I have some sympathy for Cuban exiles, so maybe I'm inconsistent...
>Honest question: Were they expelled, or did they flee? Or some of both?
Both, the fleeing was a direct result and the very intention of the massacres to achieve the ethnic-cleansing[1] of Palestinians. Those who fled were not only refused back onto their land and homes, but were also shot at and killed when they tried going back into their homes.
so you want better outcomes (lower homelessness and lower housing sale prices) by restricting new builds in urban centers to motivate people to live further away (working remote)?
I don't think this has ever been done on purpose with the explicit goal of anti-urbanism.
However, it's been done a bunch of times accidentally. One really great example: Copenhagen in Denmark. Its population actually decreased after the initial boom, it's only now back up to the levels of early 70-s: https://www.macrotrends.net/global-metrics/cities/20894/cope...
As a result, the overall Danish well-being and economics improved compared to neighboring countries. I believe, that this is very much a part of the reason for the "Danish Bumblebee" economy (meaning that it shouldn't be able to fly, but does).
And Copenhagen is routinely scored as one of the best cities on the planet.
Copenhagen's suburbanization was not accidental. They specifically built infrastructure and public transit to support suburbs with a strong connection to the city center. Their success with homelessness probably has more to do with high taxes and a lot of welfare support systems than anything else.
What kind of format (how much text, how many pages, should there be descriptions of the illustrations or does your app make those assumptions based on the text?)?
The most relevant thing about this article to me is the continued need for editors, and for people to push back on articles like this before they see the light of day.
This article is dead on arrival unless you start with explaining when in US or global cultural the general trend was individual distinctiveness.
Visual examples of sameness could be assembled from practically any point in human history.
Except every company you listed is a technology company. It's technologists doing technology. Katzenberg proves the point.
Amazon, Netflix, Quibi (a disaster run by a non-technologist), AirBnB, Google, Facebook. These are websites and apps.
I don't think Griffin is particularly illustrative of anything except it's nice to ask your grammy for $100K when you're a teenager.
Feel free to listen to a NotebookLM podcast of a PG post, but if you think any AI is going to create an original thought that catches fire like the MCU, Call Her Daddy, Succession, cumtown, Hamilton, Rogan, Inside Out, Serial, or Wicked, maybe it's you that should stay out of the conversation when it comes to creativity.
Amazon is a retailer. AWS is compute(/etc) for rent. AirBnB is homes for short term rent. Quibi is/was short movies on mobile. Google and facebook are advertising. Netflix is movies/tv shows. There is no such thing as a pure technology company - the technology has to be used to do something people want.
The people closest to the thing which is about to be dominated by machines are often clueless about what is going on.
First, do all the techbro failures where they thought they were smarter than the industry.
Second, show the company where the technologists made the same thing the old school was making, and better. Amazon retail disrupted but didn't destroy physical retail, and certainly didn't replace it, and certainly isn't better at it. Same with AirBnB => hotels, Google/FB => advertising (disrupted with a new type of product... a tech product... but have no presence in literally every other form of the industry).
The closest thing you can get to dominance is Netflix making movies and television, and there's no evidence that they make better movies and television than the old school. Technologies can use money to leverage their position against slow-moving industry players, but in this specific discussion, we've seen nothing to suggest that eventually AI could make a better film than human beings.
If you were actually in the industry you'd know that the top decisionmakers at Netflix have decreasing respect from the creative community, increasing reputation for being a cheap and difficult company to work with, and are generally regarded as a mill that creates a lot of mediocre to slightly-above-average content that gets swept aside every 3-6 months for the next wave of grist. Profitable certainly but nowhere close to being a leader in quality, for as much money as they've thrown at trying to win that Best Picture trophy (and spoiler: Emilia Perez isn't gonna do it this year either).
If you don't know anything about Hollywood, maybe you should stay out of a discussion about Hollywood.
Nope, you do the opposite. The list is long on both sides, displaying how difficult it is to know if industry knowledge is an asset or liability.
Of course they don't do the exact same thing. Only someone in industry would think to do the exact same thing. The value proposition is the same in each case, that's what matters.
The people who don't know Hollywood are the ones taking over the entertainment business. Customers of the entertainment business don't care about the "creative community" or "hollywood".
> The people who don't know Hollywood are the ones taking over the entertainment business
Really? Who is that exactly? Or is Reed Hastings just a different money guy, which the entertainment business has always had?
Aside from money, where is the actual tech that Netflix is using to "dominate" the industry? And how does it manifest? I know one specific example that you probably have no idea about, and it has nothing to do with actually making a movie.
Except the Hollywood insiders still make all of the creative decisions (after the money people make the money decisions).
Even including Netflix's success, there is no segment of the movie and television business where technology is dominating the actual creation of the content. And this conversation started with a Ben Affleck video about how that creativity isn't going to be replaced anytime soon. An algorithm can tell Netflix to greenlight a show about "nonbinary police detectives investigating election fraud", but there's no computer touching the script, direction, or any decisions the department heads are taking. And studios are already hitting the diminishing returns of ingesting a bunch of screenplays to spit out mediocre scripts (at enormous and rising cost).
Feel free to offer counter-examples, just so we're still staying with arm's length of reality.
