To clarify, I was thinking of the depreciating asset part as a loss of value the same way that a subscription is.

What is completely wild to me is that there are only 4 main apps: Reddit, twitter, instagram, and Facebook. Almost every public conversation happens on one of those platforms. And of those four platforms, one of them was bought by one singular person. Some people just don’t get the absolute scale of how much one person can just buy of our communities.

Like it or not, there are businesses on Twitter. Celebrities are easy to reach and talk to. Even companies use Twitter for support. News outlets post there. It’s a whole community. Was it a bit toxic? Yeah. But it wouldn’t have mattered. One guy bought it.

Similar to what you said, if you were to run the numbers on this I’m pretty sure owning twitter to Elon is not much different than owning a cable subscription to your average family. A whole community of tens of millions of people bought by one person and its success doesn’t matter. Capitalism is broken. And if you think that’s bad, imagine how he can affect your government when a Supreme Court justice goes for a small small fraction of the price…

Edit: I did the math and it turns out that twitter has lost so much money that this is no longer a cable subscription. It’s about a 6% yearly loss to Elons net worth, dependent on his current stock values. Which means it’s not cable, but about the cost the average person spends on food in a year ($10,000 yearly cost to a 200k net worth). Still insane.

I agree. But that’s a subjective stance obviously. I think since Minecraft was priced appropriately for its current value, there was no need to consider future value increasing. And on that basis they could have sold the game for more and chose not to. Still the point is that even if most people didn’t consider it, it incentivizes early purchases. If it were priced at the 1.0 build price at alpha launch, only die hard supporters would have bought it. Everyone else would wait. Same thing here.

You’ve just showed me why my point works. If you buy in now, your early purchase of Minecraft becomes more valuable over time as stuff is added. Therefore, buying now is better than buying later.

Whereas with his app, it’s overpriced now and will add features until that value proposition is met for more people. That discourages you from buying it and there’s no reason to buy it. Especially since it’s a subscription.

Now could he have done the Minecraft model? Yes. And since it’s a subscription, the price can go up slowly with no benefit to early adopters. I think the main reason he didn’t do that is because changing pricing this way generally doesn’t go well.

I don’t think that’s what he’s saying. You have to ask yourself a question: is offering an expensive upfront subscription for an evolving product an endorsement of assessing future value into your purchase. In my view, it isn’t and it’s not what he’s saying.

What he is saying is that to the minority who will find this a good value or who are okay donating to help them implement new features, go ahead and hit that button. Then separately he’s saying “the price will make more sense to more people as features are added” which is true but is not an endorsement of paying the current price for those promised features. At least from what’s in the article and what I’ve seen.

It’s the difference between saying that you should buy Minecraft because it will become an awesome game one day versus saying you should buy Minecraft because it’s either worth it to you now or you’re okay with helping to fund the development of future features you’ll receive. Those are very different.

What the EU actually needs to do is to spearhead and help find everyone a way to actually “own” digital things. I think I’d be fine with not having a disk drive if I could buy my game, not be reliant on servers to download it in the future, trade my games with friends, and choose to sell it when I felt like it.

We need to find a way to get back (most of) the benefits of physical media without actually having to go back to it.

Yeah this is what I mean. I don’t get why people who don’t like their content bother hating them. You don’t like that they mostly exist for entertainment, cool, why bother caring? If you want deep tech dives or something else, there’s plenty of content out there. You’re upset they aren’t more knowledgeable as if everyone making tech content needs to know everything.

And yeah I did feel like they messed up with the Billet incident and it was one of the more important things they needed to address properly. They made a mistake and I do think that Linus handled it poorly to say the least. They deserved that part of the scandal. All I’ll say is I’m willing to wait and see if they improve or if they make similar mistakes. If that’s a big deal to you, I get that, but that’s not where a majority of the hate is coming from either. It’s coming from what I said before about tech people wanting different content

This was my impression. All of their scandals they’ve taken extremely seriously(it appears), done the work to fix and improve, and a lot of their issues seem to be results of fast scaling and organizational level problems that can be fixed.They haven’t just swept things under the rug where they’re able to be transparent. I just think the problem is what Luke has always said: When you open a company up to transparency, you gain criticism, and then the company has large incentives to shut down that transparency because all you use it for is to cause them problems.

Aside from that, the LTT community and outsiders seem very toxic toward them.

I’ll be that guy. I don’t understand why LTT gets so much crap from people constantly, they seem to have a very toxic community even without the scandals. But in regards to the more recent scandal, I really think a lot of those things are fixable and I’ll be watching to see if they fix them.

As far as the sexual harassment stuff goes I can see that as a legitimate reason to stop watching. At the same time though, how should we feel with such limited and one sided information? And especially how should I feel if the problems aren’t inherent to the company and if they don’t reoccur?

Maybe someone can help clear this up for me because I’m not that informed and I’m still giving them a chance but maybe I shouldn’t be.

People can say nothing was done but the only info you’re going to get is going to be from the accusers. The company isn’t going to speak publicly about it and so we won’t ever know what their views are or what proof they have.

Looks like the rule for the US is much different, only 1.25-1.4x the salary in total costs. That average salary is probably only correct for a junior employee though. But you can safely assume it’s around 100k at least per employee.

You underestimate the amount of average joes that use stuff like DuckDuckGo

This is what’s next for Bethesda, but it’s smart of them to only unionize after Bethesda has started on their next “independent” project. It all depends on how ES6 does. If it isn’t a smash hit with decent reception, Bethesda will be absorbed into Microsoft I guarantee it

They’re reporting 1.00 billion in gross profit as of Q1 2024 so yeah, they make money. It’s kind of impossible to compare much though since they’re the only freestanding music competitor that’s popular.

The closest comparison I can make is using Apples reported figures of making around $9.2 billion in revenue for its 93 million user base.

Meanwhile Spotify is making around 2.63 billion in revenue for its near 3x subscriber base estimated around 240 million. So I wouldn’t say they’re not making money, but maybe you can see why they think they can squeeze a lot more. Best to just unsubscribe honestly, they’ll keep doing this

What’s funny is that it’s also probably an internal security risk as well. I mean who knows, there’s probably at least one of their internal servers that still accepts credentials or keys from the dead domain. Not to mention their emails probably aren’t transferred.

All of that could be fixed but you’d have to, ya know, not fire your programmers.

He did demonstrate it that way, specifically with a carrot. And it somewhat worked. The problem is they programmed it to do more and more pressure every time it fails meaning that doing the carrot first actually caused a safety issue. He only moved onto his finger because the safety feature seemed to be working.

Kind of. They’re asking you to pay for maximum possible bandwidth but make no claims about how long you can use that max bandwidth. Packets are only a convenient way to measure a percentage of max bandwidth use over time.

I think we’ve just stumbled on an issue where the rubber meets the road as far as our philosophies about privacy and consent. I view consent as important mostly in areas that pertain to bodily autonomy right? So we give people the rights to use our likeness for profit or promotion or distribution. And what we’re giving people is a mental permission slip to utilize the idea of the body or the body itself for specific purposes.

However, I don’t think that these things really pertain to private matters. Because the consent issue only applies when there are potential effects on the other person. Like if I talk about celebrities and say that imagining a celebrity sexually does no damage because you don’t know them, I think most people would agree. And so if what we care about is harm, there is no potential for harm.

With surveillance matters, the consent does matter because we view breaching privacy as potential harm. The reason it doesn’t apply to AI nudes is that privacy is not being breached. The photos aren’t real. So it’s just a fantasy of a breach of privacy.

So for instance if you do know the person and involve them sexually without their consent, that’s blatantly wrong. But if you imagine them, that doesn’t involve them at all. Is it wrong to create material imaginations of someone sexually? I’d argue it’s only wrong if there is potential for harm and since the tech is already here, I actually view that potential for harm as decreasing in a way. The same is true nonsexually. Is it wrong to deepfake friends into viral videos and post them on twitter? Can be. Depends. But do it in private? I don’t see an issue.

The problem I see is the public stuff. People sharing it. And it’s already too late to stop most of the private stuff. Instead we should focus on stopping AI porn from being shared and posted and create higher punishments for ANYONE who does so. The impact of fake nudes and real nudes is very similar, so just take them similarly seriously.

In every chat I find about this, I see people railing against AI tools like this but I have yet to hear an argument that makes much sense to me about it. I don’t care much either way but I want a grounded position.

I care about harms to people and in general, people should be free to do what they want until it begins harming someone. And then we get to have a nuanced conversation about it.

I’ve come up with a hypothetical. Let’s say that you write naughty stuff about someone in your diary. The diary is kept in a secure place and in private. Then, a burglar breaks in and steals your diary and mails that page to whomever you wrote it about. Are you, the writer, in the wrong?

My argument would be no. You are expressing a desire in private and only through the malice of someone else was the harm done. And no, being “creepy” isn’t an argument either. The consent thing I can maybe see but again do you have a right not to be fantasized about? Not to be written about in private?

I’m interested in people’s thoughts because this argument bugs me not to have a good answer for.

I just don’t see why you’d make the creation of this stuff illegal. Right now you could be easy photoshop to put people’s faces onto dirty pictures. It hurts zero people and also takes a similar low amount of effort. As long as you keep it to yourself, society should not care.

Making it illegal also seems kind of dumb when you can just hold someone civilly liable for this stuff if they’re posting nude photos of you, real or not. I don’t see the issue of any of it if we enforce these photos spreading as if they were real and let people collect damages.