If your retirement account is making more than 140k/year. You are probably in late stages of career, and of course have completely different incentives that also play into 'what's the point'.
If my retirement account was making more than my salary, then I'd also be asking myself 'what is the point' -> Regardless of inflation.
" leaving the musicians looking like neutral parties."
Isn't this giving Ticketmaster too much credit, for helping artist profit.
When part of the problem is the artist also does not get as much from the high ticket price. Since Ticketmaster owns the venues, and the entire supply chain, the artist is also enthralled and must take whatever 'lower payout' that Ticketmaster feels like giving.
So, tickets might be high, the artist also gets a fraction.
The ticket buyer only has one option, the artist only has one option. Both sides of the equation are losing while the grifter in the middle is taking a mad fat cut.
This is such a well documented clear cut case of monopoly, it makes me really sad that nobody is breaking it up. Just generally, that the system is failing.
If monopoly laws were applied to Live Nation, who would pay the lobbyists? And if the lobbyists weren't paid, who would pay the politicians?
Your argument works on paper, but the ground truth is that the base price of tickets is 5x what it was when I was in high school. If you're a big enough artist to fill venues, trust that you've done just fine under this arrangement.
Recorded music is literally just a loss leader to sell tickets now.
And when you sell tickets, you can sell merch. Did you know that venues usually take a (large) cut of merch sales? The same venues that are owned by the same company that owns Ticketmaster, the venue, the promoter and the radio stations?
What if? Trump is playing 5.7-D chess. He knows his base is full of idiots. He bombs Iran to create a crisis that wakes up his base to "wut, oil, need oil".
This was only way to get them to use renewables and re-think that maybe electric vehicles are not just 'woke' but also can help 'national security'.
Create Crises, to swing economy to electric and renewables faster than EV subsidies ever could.
Am I being downvoted by Trump Fans? For making fun.
or
Am I being downvoted by Trump haters because even a satirically positive view of him, is too positive. Don't even make fun, if the fun is showing him in too positive a light?
C#,C++, Java seems imperative. You are in control? But you aren't really telling it how to move values between registers, the compiler is making a million decisions for you on how the computer will execute that 'imperative' code. Just like SQL isn't really telling the DB how to do it either..
It's really a matter of degrees though. You're waving away a big part of the big sell of a relational database as proposed by Codd, which is that the user need not "know" the structure of the data in order to formulate operations on it because there's a consistent set-oriented model that can be used with a bunch of different physical storage forms but also the very sequence of relational operations against it can be re-ordered / restructured without the user knowing. And that the same data can be accessed in N number of ways that don't require changing the underlying storage. In theory. In practice SQL databases are only sort-of there.
Contrast that if I create a class/object/field structure/hierarchy in Java, or put a HashMap somewhere with a certain set of keys, I've written something in stone which requires significant refactoring if the data needs to be accessed from a different direction.
Is there someplace that takes all of these inputs. Then graphs them over 10 or 20 years and include some adjustment for inflation? I didn't see in article any discussion about mortgage rates versus appreciation versus inflation.
Article did sum all the inputs/outputs, and came out at loss. I'm just wondering if there is some other trends over 10 or 20 years that make the house better.
Not all the inputs, but Ben Felix’s company (makes videos on this topic) has a rent vs buy calculator, mainly focused on investing the cost difference for mortgage vs renting: https://research-tools.pwlcapital.com/research/rent-vs-buy
It could end the abortion issue if fertilized eggs could be moved early enough. Any woman who didn't want a baby could have it transferred to an artificial womb and sign away all rights to/responsibility for it. Any father who wanted their child when the mother didn't could keep it. It could help premature infants too.
That's very likely to be the future of the human race where governments produce, train and push out artificial humans like a factory. Well if we don't solve aging and robotics by then, then we'll probably just stop having babies altogether or at least not in a quantity that matters.
If they are made, we can re-label them as machines and give them lesser rights. And make ourselves feel better about treating them as lower class by some 'justification', like they don't have souls.
Perhaps some gene editing to give them 'blue' skin, some non-historically-biased-color to identify them.
Really. There are ton of books with these themes already. I'm not saying anything that hasn't been said, and now a company is doing it, so why am I getting downvoted.
> If they are made, we can re-label them as machines and give them lesser rights. And make ourselves feel better about treating them as lower class by some 'justification', like they don't have souls.
We could but maybe we don’t? Slavery is pretty inefficient. If South Korea could mass produce people, I’m pretty sure the government would be happy with just letting them be normal members of society instead of some kind of Smurf slave caste for a populace vanishing from demographic collapse.
Fiction is nice when you want to speculate on “what if …” but reality is infinitely more complex.
Eggs are simpler than Wombs. Chickens are simpler than Humans. Of course we have to solve the simpler things first. Of course, this is leading along the same path as occurs in Brave New World. We have to be able to grow chickens before we can move on to humans.
We already have cloning. But have lacked being able to do it without implanting the egg into a female. This is just getting us closer.
Baby steps. That the dystopia isn't happening today doesn't mean we aren't working on it.
What is "it", exactly? I have probably read some of the same dystopian science fiction novels as you have. But this is Jurassic Park, not A Brave New World.
In one of the movies, they did clone a human, they just didn't lean into that story line. It was treated as a one-off, but the same science allowed both. (in the fictional story)
The point isn't that we'll have humans tomorrow. Just that this one step. We'll need to solve problems on simpler animals first. An egg is easier than a womb, a chicken is easier than a human. It's the start.
So yes. Brave New World isn't today. But its obvious this technology is on the same path.
Yeah but there's also the book where we make people in a lab and they're great and everyone lives happily ever after forever. Don't cherry-pick your data.
So I'm not providing a good literary survey of books with similar tropes and providing some of the positive ones? There are literally half dozen very famous negative examples, but I didn't do good enough search to find a positive one?
That would be like every comment on AI should include some example from The Culture Series as an example that all this AI stuff could great.
No man, it's just that saying "this scenario is popular because it makes for a good story therefore it'll happen in reality" is an absurd point to make.
Taking scientific breakthroughs and extrapolating and/or comparing to Science Fiction? Shock, clutch my pearls, who would do such a thing. The absurdity. Surely nobody has done this before.
Sure. If you take all of Science Fiction, if you want, take all of Literature. And compare it to everything that actually has happened. Then Fiction has guessed at more things than have actually happened. So, a poor predictor.
Not sure what that point is proving. We shouldn't look at fiction for any inspiration or cautionary tales? Just shut up and calculate?
The point is proving that "chickens now, maybe humans later" is just an extremely poor predictor. It's a useless disapproval of a new technology based on "hey, you can't prove it won't happen!".
So, we might not get humans. Ok, but we also wont get humans without simpler test cases along the way. Simpler animals, simpler mechanisms. So now we are taking those steps.
We can't see the end, but we are on the road.
Maybe that is why the fictional stories resonate here. It is easy to see the possible connections. Easy to make the leap from here, to what could be. Even if it is not an actual predictor like a scientific proof.
I still don't understand how an artificial hard physical egg, like the ones a natural chicken lays, which I'm pretty sure is not where humans come from; I don't understand where that is "on the road" simply because, and again, I'm no biologist, but as far as I know, humans don't come from hard shelled eggs.
You need to invent transistors before you can invent the computer.
If you went back in time when transistors were invented and told them to be careful, those might lead to a global computer network controlled by social media companies that will enslave you. They would look at you like your crazy. And yet there was sci-fi stories at the time about future computers.
So, on one hand, yes I'm making a leap. But on other, it isn't completely crazy. Not so crazy to dismiss.
The egg is on the same technology path. But yes, humans are far off.
If my retirement account was making more than my salary, then I'd also be asking myself 'what is the point' -> Regardless of inflation.
reply