• 0 Posts
  • 134 Comments
Joined 2 years ago
cake
Cake day: January 26th, 2024

help-circle
  • Honestly, advertising is very dystopian. Online tracking being the obvious first example.

    But that’s not all. How should I block physical ads in the city? Not only does it ruin the view, but roadside billboards surely caused at least one death by distracting a driver, and ads can get quite distasteful.

    Also, it’s not just roadside - they’re plastered everywhere! Buildings, bus stops, right in the middle of the sidewalk. Some are classic paper, some are of the TV screen type. Some are quite small and inconspicuous, but a lot are huge enough to be seen from at least half a mile away.

    Physical ads don’t finance anything. They’re just obnoxious. I don’t know how succeptible to ads other people are, but for me it takes an actually good offer to entice me - and usually that’s heard on radio or seen on TV (as far as ads go).


  • Some economist please corrcxt me if I’m wrong, but: Trickle down may not work. However, trickle up should.

    If you do say, UBI, people will spend the stuff. And the money will go to the big players. They’ll buy their food at Walmart. Or meds at Target Pharmacy. Or get a loan at JP Morgan.

    Unlike, say Walmart, who won’t buy their huge private jet collection from the swathes of less-than-well-off people across all of America.

    So even if UBI made people lazy, even if it made people less productive, the money will still disproportionately end up in the hands of the rich.


  • unwarlikeExtortion@lemmy.mltoMemes@lemmy.mlWho?
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    edit-2
    15 days ago

    Equally serious (and just a bit more deranged of an answer):

    Humans are not meant to do work. Physical or otherwise. This slavery thing where everyone, regardless of race, gender, orientation (and almost even age) we have going on is just degrading and nonsensical.

    Humans should live in tightly-knit families and tribes. Of course, the woman should do the simpler housework like cleaning, cooking and tidying, while the father should do the more manual stuff like fixing things, growing plants, keeping animals and hunting.

    Women should likewise be seperated from books because they are more likely ro succumb to the words of the devil. I’m sorry, but that’s just how it is. Therefore men must educate their heirs (male, of course), while the wife should teach her daughters how to domthe chores.

    If you can’t see how exposing a frail woman to the harsh reality of being the man of the house, try thinking of your own daughter.


  • Because historically (and for the most part today as well), it costs money.

    Sure, today stuff like ChatGPT and the somewhat older Google Translate exists, but that doesn’t solve the cost issue. (And I’m skirting on the huge elephant in the room called quality for a bit of brevity).

    There’s a huge chance someone paid a good chunk of money for all the books you find dirt-cheap at a flea market, check out at a library or happen to find in your own house.

    Printing physical books is expensive. Publishers also want a margin, and a lot of authors want royalties.

    In the end even if the publisher and author are both good souls demanding nothing, someone needs to foot the cost of printing. But before that, you’d need to go through non-trivial talks with most authors’ publishers and/or authors themselves.

    Then you need to arange for translation, typesetting and printing if you’re not doing it yourself. That takes both time and money.

    And if you were to do all that yourself, it’d be a huge time investment, with a potential lawsuit if you don’t do those damn talks. So most just don’t bother.

    Businesses are incredibly inefficient, even though some are “successful” and have a lot of cash to burn. They need to pay workers, bills, buy and fix equipment, and of course, a cut needs to go to the top people. Usually the “golden” 80-20 rule applies to almost everything: 20% of books make 80% of money, 20% of employees make 80% of money, and a different 20% of people do 80% of the work, etc. And of course, in this world, it’s all about the money.

    A translation is usually initiated by a publisher that has a manager who wants to get his section’s metrics up to go cry to his own manager about how good he is to get a raise or not get fired. This is a daily grind. Sometimes (but quite rarely), that leads the manager to the decision of publishing a new book. Usually such actions are guided by things like bestseller lists, reviews and personal biases of the manager and the company as a whole. Sometimes the publisher hires an agency to try to approximate the demand for such a book (even more money spent). Then they do the talks. This also costs money, and the result is also a cost of money (the royalties to be paid). Then comes translation, then printing, then distribution to bookstores, and finally advertising.

    These are just the steps that come to mind. All cost money, and all the books you see for sale in a bookstore went through all of these steps. For a library, not as much (but still the vast majority) did.

    Sure, not every situation is the same, so there are companies that specialize in providing translations of well-known works or companies whose manager at one point said they need to publish 25 translations yearly (instead of one individual one), so they kind of “flood” the market.

    But sometimes it’s just the whim of a newspaper whose management thought printing classic works of shorter length and bundling them with their newspaper would drive up newspaper sales.

    It’s incredible how each document (edition of a book or otherwise) has multiple stories (of the author, publisher, translator, seller, advertiser, buyer, worker in logistics/delivery driver,…) that shaped the life of it. Some lasted a few hours, and some took hundereds of man-hours. All of this somehow translates to money.

    That’s the long answer.

    The short one is: 80% the economy and 20% human laziness.
















  • Soon you cannot believe anything you read online.

    That’s a bit too blanket of a statement.

    There are, always were, and always will be reputable sources. Online or in print. Writteb or not.

    What AI will do is increase the amount of slop disproportionately. What it won’t do is suddenly make the real, actual, reputable sources magically disappear. Finding may become harder, but people will find a way - as they always do. New search engines, curated indexes of sites. Maybe even something wholly novel.

    .gov domains will be as reputable as the administration makes them - with or without AI.

    Wikipedia, so widely hated in academia, is proven to be at least as factual as Encyclopedia Britannica. It may be harder for it to deal with spam than it was before, but it mostly won’t be phased.

    Your local TV station will spout the same disinformation (or not) - with or without AI.

    Using AI (or not) is a management-level decision. What use of AI is or isn’t allowed is as well.

    AI, while undenkably a gamechanger, isn’t as big a gamechanger as it’s often sold as, and the parallels between the AI and the dot-com bubble are staggering, so bear with me for a bit:

    Was dot-com (the advent of the corporate worldwide Internet) a gamechanger? Yes.

    Did it hurt the publishing industry? Yes.

    But is the publishing industry dead? No.

    Swap “AI” for dot-com and “credible content” for the publishing industry and you have your boring, but realistic answer.

    Books still exist. They may not be as popular, but they’re still a thing. CDs and vinyl as well. Not ubiquitous, but definitely chugging along just fine. Why should “credible content” die, when the disruption AI causes to the intellectual supply chain is so much smaller than suddenly needing a single computer and an Internet line instead of an entire large-scale printing setup?


  • Just like the citizens of the United States do not support the actions of the United States government

    They do. Period.

    If they didn’t, they’d complain. Louder and louder with each passing day, until the cause went away.

    However, that’s not what’s happening.

    Minding your own business means you support the current power structures and those in them. Silent support is still - support.

    Italy is doing good on the complaining front: they disrupt the economy. Not enough so anything changes in essence, but just enough so some lines go down and alarm bells start ringing.

    Most people, unfortunately, eat up the “antisemitic” and “Everyone I don’t like is Khamas” arguments. A good chunk not because they’re stupid amd can’t differentiate, but because it gives them an easy way of coping with what they’re seeing: truly bad stuff happening. Bad stuff they like.