See, the thing is, whining *works*. It gets the media's attention, and builds up pressure to get revenge on the people being whined about. One could argue that these "social justice warriors" are just using the weapons at hand. Sad little weapons, but sometimes surprisingly effective.
...in a country of 300 million, there are a few thousand sad little morons who have discovered how to post on the internet. Welcome to the neighborhood.
Is it possible that scientists are so surprised so often of the time because "surprised" make a better headline? Look at the overuse of "surprised", "shocked" and "couldn't believe what they saw" in the last few years in all types of news.
The news industry makes money by selling content or selling advertising when you view the content. There's a perception (probably true) that "shocked at what they found" "scientists surprised" "discovered the impossible" and such hyperbole gets fingers on buttons or (much less now) pocket change in newspaper machines.
What scientists actually feel, is, I STRONGLY suspect, a lot more boring.
So people are cord cutting, for stated reasons of high cost, lack of choice, and terrible customer service, and vendors are responding by *raising* rates. Do they really think this is a solution? Or just a temporary reprieve while they start shutting down branch offices?
Or maybe they think this cord cutting is just a fad, and viewers will come back with tails between legs later?
Or maybe vendors have something up their odious sleeves -- the next step being, to stop providing internet-only options? If you want internet, you *must* also subscribe to cable?
I'm certain that there will still be a set of people who wait outside in the rain when a new Apple product is released, and cheerfully turn in their previous iteration to be shredded, and consider the outrageous price as a way of showing everyone how well they're doing in the world every time they pull out their new shiny Apple device, not bothered at all that their battery is not replaceable and the memory and SSD are soldered in place, secure in the knowledge that a slight incremental refresh will become available before any current components have a chance to wear out.
Apple will continue to make money on the J R Beer business model "if you have to ask how much it costs, you can't afford it". Just, perhaps, not quite as much money.
I haven't brought up Edge at all ever. I won't willingly use a Microsoft browser again, except briefly to download an alternative browser. (and Windows 10 still for some odd reason has Internet Explorer, which I keep hearing is obsolete.) Microsoft has proven to my satisfaction in past years that they have no intention of creating a browser that adheres to industry standards, except by the market-speak that "we're Microsoft, whatever we decide to do is an industry standard".
Fastest browser? I don't care. Firefox is fast enough and it's far more likely to do what I expect. Best battery life? Still don't care. In my workflow, only a small fraction of my time is spent in a browser, and that's usually only to check my work.
There is always that small urge to try something new, but it's Microsoft -- again, they can't be depended upon to follow standards -- so any time I spend with a Microsoft browser is likely to be a waste.
It's just not worth it. Sorry Microsoft, you've already shat your bed. Putting on a new comforter doesn't do anything about the smell.
And I'll tell you what. Windows 10 continually begging me to try Edge instead because it's faster, or please please please try Cortana or try some other feature I have no interest in, only makes me long for the day when the last few Windows-only apps in my workflow finally have viable Linux alternatives, so I can at long last leave Windows and all its whining behind.
An operating system manages resources and loads applications. I don't want it to be my friend or to help me shop or suggest places I could go on the internet. To the degree it does those things, I feel compelled to find a different operating system.
"Cable TV is heavily subsidized by advertisements."
Yep. Really expensive for the consumer, *and* heavily subsidized by advertisements. Making conventional cable TV an easy target for streaming services.
I'm not sure internet services plus on-demand services are collectively higher than cable TV. But internet is relatively cheap in our area ($40/month for 30/30) and we don't subscribe to "all the services". Our total is still roughly 1/3 of what Comcast was charging for conventional cable TV plus (slower!!) internet, which, as you pointed out, you have to have anyway.
To my knowledge the wife only subscribes to three services. I don't watch much TV so it's not something I pay attention to. I *was* paying all the bills, and a few years back I returned both set-top boxes, which never really worked well anyway, cut off the cable service, bought internet only from a different provider, (fiber to the house -- whee!) and put a big farmhouse-style antenna on the roof. ("Antenna". How quaint.). I then told wife and daughter that this was all I was going to provide, and if they wanted anything else, they would have to buy it themselves. So wife bought a roku (which I helped her set up) and she and daughter now watch Hulu and Netflix and one other I can't remember, and the 13-odd channels they can get off the antenna. It works for us.
"We don't care how many services there are to choose from, we care that there is so much exclusivity."
Agreed. The problem being, exclusivity is these services' differentiation. "Sign up for OurCompany all access, as it's the only way to see these new shows! Netflix and Hulu won't have them for years!"
...because we wanted to increase the information accessibility on the net, as well as to increase the number of information providers (digital multiply). Each provider claimed that they add something original to offer to the end user (digital add). We now discover that each provider wants nothing but money from our pockets (digital subtract).
But... are we surprised? Isn't that ultimately what any provider wants?
I strongly suspect that there will be at some point a consolidation of all these streaming services under a single umbrella, where you pay one bill and get access to a collection of services (including some you don't want, but are included in your tier whether you want them or not) plus a bunch of other features bundled in that nobody really needs. There will be an attractive introductory price offered followed six months later by an outrageous monthly cost.
There will be a set top box that you have to rent. Probably with a DVR that you don't need (violating the whole concept of "on demand") but have to pay for anyway.
"roaring off on open highways" and "too much stop-and-go traffic" are generally talking about two different environments. I think there's a big difference in user experience between stop-and-go traffic to get to your work, and driving a country road in fall colors to a new destination.
I suspect that what the study is really measuring is a cultural change brought on by easy access to personal electronics and social media. It's a sucking thing rather than a pushing thing. When most of your needs are being met by that silicon rectangle in your hand, it's easier to decide not to take that drive to the country and experience reality.
The US is a big, big place and us humans don't actually inhabit more than a small portion of it. I ride (Harley) just for the fun of it, and I have no problems finding empty roads and interesting near-deserted places to explore all over the central and western US. I can ride for days, alone, and have a great time.
I admit I may be an edge case. I'm old enough to be in the "let's go for a drive" generation, and I live right on the edge of my area's urban growth boundary. Head south-west for four blocks and I'm in the country. But even were I right in the middle of the metro area, it wouldn't be more than an hour to get out into the open, except during rush hour of course.
I get that the problem as framed is that if you're driving for hours and hours to and from work during the week, why the heck would you want to take a drive on the weekend? My answer put succinctly is that it's a different thing. It's like, the difference between riding a stationary bike and riding a mountain bike in the woods. It's a different experience. Being bored to tears on the stationary doesn't preclude finding pleasure in a country ride.
When I worked in the city, my commute was typically 45 minutes to 1.5 hours, one way, depending on traffic. I'm well aware that there's areas where this is a lot worse. My uncle had a commute in LA of three hours each direction, which begs the question, why the hell didn't he move somewhere else?
Daughter is in her twenties, and she apparently inherited my love of driving. She has a small economical car that she takes exploring to let her mind decompress after a tough day, despite having a 40 minute to 1 hour commute each way to her job. Where she lives, there's traffic for about four blocks, and then open road. Admittedly, probably another edge case.
Enh. Just harvest criminals convicted of the death penalty. If that doesn't yield enough organs, just make death the penalty for more and more offenses.
I'm in my sixties. Although I may not have the energy I used to have, my time management and people skills have been honed by 30+ years in this job. In some ways it's actually gotten easier. In my youth I had a difficult time getting up in the morning, and getting back to sleep after a late night call. I had trouble dealing with department drama and tended to take things personally. I'm a lot more emotionally mature now, much less likely to let drama bother me, and generally have an easier time dealing with stress.
Moreover, I have to deal with end users in their fifties and sixties who didn't grow up with computers, and can relate to them better than I could in my youth. I was a very early adopter -- online in 1982, long before "the internet" became a thing, but I appreciate that people have jobs for which computers are just a tool, not a lifestyle.
So no, I can't say it's gotten any harder. Quite the opposite, actually.
Slashdot Mirror
The dark side of advertising.
I think his point is that most of this kind of crap is originating from one geological area.
Hm. yeah, I see a time when only positive feedback is allowed. That would solve it.
See, the thing is, whining *works*. It gets the media's attention, and builds up pressure to get revenge on the people being whined about. One could argue that these "social justice warriors" are just using the weapons at hand. Sad little weapons, but sometimes surprisingly effective.
Saying "Hundreds of men" is more woke.
Is it possible that scientists are so surprised so often of the time because "surprised" make a better headline? Look at the overuse of "surprised", "shocked" and "couldn't believe what they saw" in the last few years in all types of news.
The news industry makes money by selling content or selling advertising when you view the content. There's a perception (probably true) that "shocked at what they found" "scientists surprised" "discovered the impossible" and such hyperbole gets fingers on buttons or (much less now) pocket change in newspaper machines.
What scientists actually feel, is, I STRONGLY suspect, a lot more boring.
That was pretty much it. The further away I can get from Cortana, the better.
So people are cord cutting, for stated reasons of high cost, lack of choice, and terrible customer service, and vendors are responding by *raising* rates. Do they really think this is a solution? Or just a temporary reprieve while they start shutting down branch offices?
Or maybe they think this cord cutting is just a fad, and viewers will come back with tails between legs later?
Or maybe vendors have something up their odious sleeves -- the next step being, to stop providing internet-only options? If you want internet, you *must* also subscribe to cable?
As a hardware solution, there are external amplifiers that will plug into the headphone jack.
I'm certain that there will still be a set of people who wait outside in the rain when a new Apple product is released, and cheerfully turn in their previous iteration to be shredded, and consider the outrageous price as a way of showing everyone how well they're doing in the world every time they pull out their new shiny Apple device, not bothered at all that their battery is not replaceable and the memory and SSD are soldered in place, secure in the knowledge that a slight incremental refresh will become available before any current components have a chance to wear out.
Apple will continue to make money on the J R Beer business model "if you have to ask how much it costs, you can't afford it". Just, perhaps, not quite as much money.
"He has an iPhone 7 and didn't even consider any of the X-series iPhones because it still works just fine."
Well, that's the problem right there. Apple should do something about that.
I haven't brought up Edge at all ever. I won't willingly use a Microsoft browser again, except briefly to download an alternative browser. (and Windows 10 still for some odd reason has Internet Explorer, which I keep hearing is obsolete.) Microsoft has proven to my satisfaction in past years that they have no intention of creating a browser that adheres to industry standards, except by the market-speak that "we're Microsoft, whatever we decide to do is an industry standard".
Fastest browser? I don't care. Firefox is fast enough and it's far more likely to do what I expect. Best battery life? Still don't care. In my workflow, only a small fraction of my time is spent in a browser, and that's usually only to check my work.
There is always that small urge to try something new, but it's Microsoft -- again, they can't be depended upon to follow standards -- so any time I spend with a Microsoft browser is likely to be a waste.
It's just not worth it. Sorry Microsoft, you've already shat your bed. Putting on a new comforter doesn't do anything about the smell.
And I'll tell you what. Windows 10 continually begging me to try Edge instead because it's faster, or please please please try Cortana or try some other feature I have no interest in, only makes me long for the day when the last few Windows-only apps in my workflow finally have viable Linux alternatives, so I can at long last leave Windows and all its whining behind.
An operating system manages resources and loads applications. I don't want it to be my friend or to help me shop or suggest places I could go on the internet. To the degree it does those things, I feel compelled to find a different operating system.
Is that still a thing?
"Cable TV is heavily subsidized by advertisements."
Yep. Really expensive for the consumer, *and* heavily subsidized by advertisements. Making conventional cable TV an easy target for streaming services.
I'm not sure internet services plus on-demand services are collectively higher than cable TV. But internet is relatively cheap in our area ($40/month for 30/30) and we don't subscribe to "all the services". Our total is still roughly 1/3 of what Comcast was charging for conventional cable TV plus (slower!!) internet, which, as you pointed out, you have to have anyway.
To my knowledge the wife only subscribes to three services. I don't watch much TV so it's not something I pay attention to. I *was* paying all the bills, and a few years back I returned both set-top boxes, which never really worked well anyway, cut off the cable service, bought internet only from a different provider, (fiber to the house -- whee!) and put a big farmhouse-style antenna on the roof. ("Antenna". How quaint.). I then told wife and daughter that this was all I was going to provide, and if they wanted anything else, they would have to buy it themselves. So wife bought a roku (which I helped her set up) and she and daughter now watch Hulu and Netflix and one other I can't remember, and the 13-odd channels they can get off the antenna. It works for us.
"We don't care how many services there are to choose from, we care that there is so much exclusivity."
Agreed. The problem being, exclusivity is these services' differentiation. "Sign up for OurCompany all access, as it's the only way to see these new shows! Netflix and Hulu won't have them for years!"
And then, piracy ensues.
So far.
...because we wanted to increase the information accessibility on the net, as well as to increase the number of information providers (digital multiply). Each provider claimed that they add something original to offer to the end user (digital add). We now discover that each provider wants nothing but money from our pockets (digital subtract).
But... are we surprised? Isn't that ultimately what any provider wants?
I strongly suspect that there will be at some point a consolidation of all these streaming services under a single umbrella, where you pay one bill and get access to a collection of services (including some you don't want, but are included in your tier whether you want them or not) plus a bunch of other features bundled in that nobody really needs. There will be an attractive introductory price offered followed six months later by an outrageous monthly cost.
There will be a set top box that you have to rent. Probably with a DVR that you don't need (violating the whole concept of "on demand") but have to pay for anyway.
I can't wait.
"roaring off on open highways" and "too much stop-and-go traffic" are generally talking about two different environments. I think there's a big difference in user experience between stop-and-go traffic to get to your work, and driving a country road in fall colors to a new destination.
I suspect that what the study is really measuring is a cultural change brought on by easy access to personal electronics and social media. It's a sucking thing rather than a pushing thing. When most of your needs are being met by that silicon rectangle in your hand, it's easier to decide not to take that drive to the country and experience reality.
The US is a big, big place and us humans don't actually inhabit more than a small portion of it. I ride (Harley) just for the fun of it, and I have no problems finding empty roads and interesting near-deserted places to explore all over the central and western US. I can ride for days, alone, and have a great time.
I admit I may be an edge case. I'm old enough to be in the "let's go for a drive" generation, and I live right on the edge of my area's urban growth boundary. Head south-west for four blocks and I'm in the country. But even were I right in the middle of the metro area, it wouldn't be more than an hour to get out into the open, except during rush hour of course.
I get that the problem as framed is that if you're driving for hours and hours to and from work during the week, why the heck would you want to take a drive on the weekend? My answer put succinctly is that it's a different thing. It's like, the difference between riding a stationary bike and riding a mountain bike in the woods. It's a different experience. Being bored to tears on the stationary doesn't preclude finding pleasure in a country ride.
When I worked in the city, my commute was typically 45 minutes to 1.5 hours, one way, depending on traffic. I'm well aware that there's areas where this is a lot worse. My uncle had a commute in LA of three hours each direction, which begs the question, why the hell didn't he move somewhere else?
Daughter is in her twenties, and she apparently inherited my love of driving. She has a small economical car that she takes exploring to let her mind decompress after a tough day, despite having a 40 minute to 1 hour commute each way to her job. Where she lives, there's traffic for about four blocks, and then open road. Admittedly, probably another edge case.
Enh. Just harvest criminals convicted of the death penalty. If that doesn't yield enough organs, just make death the penalty for more and more offenses.
Wow. I think I've found my next phone.
I'm in my sixties. Although I may not have the energy I used to have, my time management and people skills have been honed by 30+ years in this job. In some ways it's actually gotten easier. In my youth I had a difficult time getting up in the morning, and getting back to sleep after a late night call. I had trouble dealing with department drama and tended to take things personally. I'm a lot more emotionally mature now, much less likely to let drama bother me, and generally have an easier time dealing with stress.
Moreover, I have to deal with end users in their fifties and sixties who didn't grow up with computers, and can relate to them better than I could in my youth. I was a very early adopter -- online in 1982, long before "the internet" became a thing, but I appreciate that people have jobs for which computers are just a tool, not a lifestyle.
So no, I can't say it's gotten any harder. Quite the opposite, actually.
I could swear that people are just looking at http://tylervigen.com/spurious... for ideas to make new headlines with.
I dunno, I believe the divorce/margarine one. Seems like a clear correlation.