t2015_08_25

Well at least they might be able to do this if Connecticut were to secede from the United States. Not sure if you're from the U.S. or not, but we have a Bill of Rights which was originally intended to protect states from the federal government... But in this case it looks like we'll have to use it to protect us from our own states.

They haven't handled the transition to new media and values properly:

1. Their magazine: Almost all magazines have been replaced with websites. Their website dramatically undersells their content. Look at it, really. It's basically like clickhole, but with stories of climate change. The dramatic photography of the magazine is only coming across in about 50% of the photos and the headlines are all clickbait format.

2. Their television presence includes shows like "Drugs, Inc." whose primarily job is to scare old people with re-enactments of drug crimes. Who would pay for that "value"? (I guess people who watch police shows? but what does that saturated market have to do with their brand?)

3. Their youtube stream is a massive quantity of short, low-quality videos. I subscribe and only watch about 1 in 50 of them. Another problem with their videos is so few have narration which I feel is a key feature of travel and wildlife shows.

4. They haven't handled outreach to a younger generation. With all the urban young people (esp. women IMO) who love to travel the world with disposable income (no families, marrying late), NG has no selling relationship with them.

5. The global geopolitical situation is more interesting than ever with worldwide communication, but I don't see NG addressing that. Maybe they are - somewhere? - but their marketing isn't penetrating.

I feel like they could turn it around if they primarily address the youngest generation - perhaps get more involved in the travel and outdoor supplies markets.

That's the thing that kills me - or almost did last month... [ 1 ]

People are delirious about self-driving cars, but even the simplest automatable task of stopping when something is in front of you is not only an option, but an expensive one.

If CAS is a pricey option, how much more will full driverless cost? How prevalent will it be? How likely is it that only the top 1% will have it? How long until it trickles down into middle-class? How much longer will it take to trickle down than CAS?

[ 1 ] Another driver and myself were rear-ended hard in a senseless accident that would have been avoided if "car 3" had had CAS (or was driverless or if the driver had been paying attention, not speeding, not following too close). My last 6 weeks have been paperwork, doctor's appointments, painkillers, ice packs, phone calls and soon physical therapy appointments. All cutting into my productivity and good mood.

i agree. i just wanted to raise the imagery of being a prosecutor in jail. if they're hostile to child molesters, imagine what they do to prosecutors! yowza.

Hmm yeah your example makes me think of fast-food as an analogy.

That is to say, there may be applications of sensing that benefit corporations financially, but don't help their users... Imagine an automaton that provokes couples into divorce though advertising, using sensed data (Instead of "You've got mail!" "you're having less sex!") as evidence.

The prototypes I saw in person a few years ago were actually surplus automated potentiometers :) They were DC motors with gear reduction and a spool, with light steel wire coiled on the spool to slide the pot or the "3-d pixel" back and forth. these may very well be pneumatic.

That is one perverse set of constraints.

Give me a few 1980s-vintage robot arms and I will outperform this system in any category except entertainment value. Robot arms once held great entertainment value and this system will become old media some day, too. Semiologically speaking, this system represents a silo of sublime resources from dopaminergics to labor and cash, but when the zombies come, I'll bet people will still run to the shed full of AK-47s.

Wow, thanks for the downvotes, everyone! Maybe I'm simply in the wrong community? I thought some intelligent discussion would be welcome, but let's try this:

Go driverless cars!

Microsoft Bad! Google Good!

Javascript Javascript Rah Rah Rah!

This is interesting to listen to, b/c Eno is well-known and has some interesting observations and ideas, but as far as his main idea, that art is play, he seems tragically unaware of the sexual implications of "hair styles, boob jobs, music," It's not merely play, it's demonstrations of reproductive fitness. Even when he talks about two females on a bus "synchronizing." How can he be so oblivious?

It's ironic b/c he begins the discussion invalidating the idea that art is an "industry," in order to enable it to merit value under contemporary economic systems, but then spends his time constructing an alternate view in which art has value as "play." And this definition of culture as a collection of rituals has already been thought by people hundreds of years ago. Rituals are a subset of culture, not an ersatz.

I'm only halfway in so far...

It's got nothing to do with deceit or skimming, it's power. There is no fraud, it would be simply taking advantage of people beyond the amount of value that I would be interesting in providing.

Your allusion to a market that would correct the price doesn't account for a market which no tenants can enter because none of them can afford the entrance (a 20% down payment).

They'll get the benefit of housing no matter how much I would charge, but if I charge more than the value of the maintenance and accounting them I would be exploiting them, taking advantage of their inability to produce capital in the time it's taken me to produce it. And everyone else who is in the position I am could exploit them just as easily so the market doesn't help there.

It's like gas prices: if so many gas stations can compete, how come they prices aren't driven down to nothing? Because of the entrance cost to the market. You can't start a well and refinery, so you have to go to one of the established ones.

For luxury items like phones, art, fancy cars, etc., I don't care about charging people a lot of money. But for water, air, food, medical and housing, which people have no choice to acquire or consume I'm not going to gouge them.

This is not some rational choice about what a person or market theory can or should do, this is my personal code of ethics.

I like the cut of your jib.

I've been considering buying rental properties to supplement my income, but something deep inside somewhere, based on living close to people well below my income level as one of a 4-unit building, prevented me from doing it.

When I tried to compute how much rent I would charge, I realized I would be profiting simply by taking money from them because they have been unable to accumulate capital at the pace I have been. While that does indicate some skill on my part - hey, I scrimp and shop wisely - I don't feel it morally qualifies me to skim from others. That would be paying myself twice. When I scrimp and shop wisely, I benefit from having extra savings, but using that savings to get more from others without adding more value is something I don't feel right doing.

I could morally accept money as a landlord based on my labor doing maintenance and time spent bookkeeping, I suppose. That - speaking as a current tenant - does have some value, but I just don't think it would be much, approximately that of a day laborer or accountant for several hours a week. So screw it, i'll make a lot more money creating something of real value.

Thank you for helping me recognize and articulate this, branchless.

Ah you're right. Thanks. That was driving me crazy. I should have learned by reading substantive comments found elsewhere. This one below, for example, struck me as exceptionally substantive and now I can see why it hasn't been voted below zero:

"I don't want to show up to work sweaty. And I want the utility of a vehicle if my plans change. So I'll drive regardless."

So what on Earth is objectionable in my comment? I speak from a moderate viewpoint, to take the study seriously, but not apply it blindly, apply my own small amount of experience, and get downvoted to -4?

Did this offend anyone? Please explain how. Otherwise I would perceive the downvotes to be the work of trolls.