- So, when do they start inserting ads?
Imagine splicing in an ad of the content creator shilling for Pepsi into a video.
That leads to customized "in media" ads, and ads that are "targeted" at users by having their favorite Youtubers be unwitting mouthpieces for advertisers.
I look forward to the eventual deepfake of a person of color spouting ad copy for right-wing fascists.
- The primary purpose of Foreign Aid isn't about charity.
McGillivray, F., & Smith, A. (2008). Punishing the prince: a theory of interstate relations, political institutions, and leader change. Princeton University Press.
It's about influencing governments. It's a really nice way to "bribe" foreign officials for things that a government wants.
- Can't find a paper on the subject, but the UK Atomic Energy Authority (UKAEA) has a promo video which shows off (what they claim is) a proof of concept device. So the team seems to have some serious money and influence behind them:
https://www.adsadvance.co.uk/university-of-bristol-and-ukaea...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IgGVt4sUnnw
Then since batteries are in demand, cheap ones doubly so, and ones that don't rely on rare Earth minerals from Chine triply so, they should have a wide market to tap into to make them profitable. Then also, as the UK is a NATO country, an invention like this could reasonably be argued to be a national security issue, which implies (very lucrative) government contracts.
- Such a stupid headline. The quote is:
> According to a national work-from-home survey by economists at three universities, less than a quarter of 20-somethings who can do their jobs remotely want to do so full time.
Which isn't backed up by the data:
> The Gap Between How Much Employees Want to Work from Home and Employer Plans Fluctuates Near 0.5 Days
> Employers Offer Fewer Fully Remote Jobs and More Fully Onsite Jobs Than Employees Want
> Workers In Their 50s and 60s Are Fully On Site and Fully Remote More Often Than Younger Workers
> SWAA Respondents Prefer Hybrid WFH (2-3 Days/Week) Over Fully In-Person Work By A Margin of 3.8-to-1 (With 57.4% of respondents preferring to work from home as compared with working on site every workday)
> Even the Least WFH-Friendly Age and Education Groups Favor Hybrid WFH Over Fully In-Person Work by Wide Margins
https://wfhresearch.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/09/WFHResear...
I'm sure there's some "creative" reading of the data that supports the headline, but it's non-obvious how, and certainly not in keeping with any reasonable interpretation of the data and reality.
Stretching credulity, this part: "less than a quarter of 20-somethings who can do their jobs remotely want to do so full time." could be related to the data item "SWAA Respondents Prefer Hybrid WFH (2-3 Days/Week) Over Fully In-Person Work By A Margin of 3.8-to-1", as a reading of the survey question compared working 2-3 days *in total* as compared to working full-time on site:
> "How would you feel about WFH 2 or 3 days a week, compared to working at your employer's site every workday?"
And so the headline may be based on this single poorly worded question.
- It sure makes Putin look weak on the world stage. Looking weak is a bad position for a dictator to be in, it makes their supporters look for replacements, which means they're out of a job and probably destined for a shallow grave.
De Mesquita, B. B., Smith, A., Siverson, R. M., & Morrow, J. D. (2005). The logic of political survival. MIT press.
- Interesting, one of the first highly publicized Hoover-ville's of the modern age:
- > Nearly two years on, investment banks have been unable to offload the debt, tying up precious capital and limiting their ability to originate and finance more deals.
> indications from at least one bank show that this is affecting the lenders’ bottom line.
> The cut was so severe that almost a quarter of the bank’s 200-plus managing directors quit once they had collected it.
Amazing, I had no idea it was so bad. This could play a non-insignificant role in an economic downturn, as tying up capital is a sure way to disrupt the economy in such a way as to lead toward a depression.
- > but experts describe the fertility uptick as more of a “blip”. That hasn’t stopped countries including Russia, Greece and Italy giving baby bonuses a go.
So, this business of baby bounties is political tenable, but not an actual solution.
> Australia’s fertility rate peaked at 3.5 in 1961. By 1975 – not long after Gough Whitlam abolished the luxury tax on the contraceptive pill – it had dropped to replacement level (2.1), and now
Strange that no one seems to be doing a comparison between then and now to find out what factors would encourage replacement levels. They'd probably find that they need to pay people more and ensure job security, which is never popular with the autocrats.
- More of Musk weaponizing the courts against organizations and people he doesn't like; For example, his multiple SLAPP suits:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2024/03/25/musk-x-...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategic_lawsuit_against_publ...
- > the message seems to be: money isn't real.
Literally true.
Piketty, T. (2014). Capital in the twenty-first century. Harvard University Press.
And also, it's a pretty stupid way to handle wealth.
Lietaer, B., & Dunne, J. (2013). Rethinking money: How new currencies turn scarcity into prosperity. Berrett-Koehler Publishers.
- > "You actually have to be dynamic, iterative, and transparent throughout the whole thing. And you need both C-level people and operational people to make this work ... The C-suite has to make choices to fail fast and fail cheaply."
Interesting. This approach isn't compatible with how power function in a traditional hierarchical company. If they're to be believed the "issue" with AI adoption and ROI may not be the technology, but how it's managed.
Edit: Actually, giving it some thought, I wonder if this might put some selective pressure on more traditional businesses, in favour of less hierarchical organizational practices.
Startups tend to be more democratic, as most or the entire population associated with the organization is integral to its function. It's only after expanding and organizing in such a way that power is concentrated in a few hands that businesses start to fail in predictable ways.
In the article they talked about improving some of their processes by ~80% or more, with the help of AI. Then, as traditional businesses seem to be having some issue with implementing AI (as it may not be compatible with their organizational patterns), then it may be startups or non-traditional organizations that can really reap the benefit of AI.
If that's the case, then those non-traditional businesses may have a distinct advantage over larger businesses, given how large the gains can be realized viz AI. And so that would seem to put some selective pressure (i.e., evolutionary pressure) on larger organizations that use this naive hierarchical management style.
It will be interesting to see if larger organizations will face some stiff competition from smaller organizations that can "fail fast" enough to make AI work. But, it will probably just be the tried and true pattern of larger organizations failing to innovate, and instead buying the more successful organizations to strip them for parts; See Broadcom and VMWare for a recent example.
Investors favour a hierarchical organizational pattern as it makes the organizations easy to control. And so, if this new "pressure" is realized, it will be interesting to see what they'll do. Control is very important for these people, so as to realize a profit that they can easily extract from their investments, and so they might resist the "pressure" to move toward a different style of management. But it remains to be seen if the benefits of implementing AI in these non-traditional businesses outweigh the power wielded by investors and their hoarded wealth. Will they eventually bow to the inevitable and implement new organizational patterns? Or will they throw money at the problem to try to make it go away? I favour the second possibility, as that's what they usually do. But as with other shifts in the way things are done, I think they'll fail at shoveling against the tide, and something new might come to pass.
De Mesquita, B. B., Smith, A., Siverson, R. M., & Morrow, J. D. (2005). The logic of political survival. MIT press.
- Amazon management ethos is famous. I've always wondered if it's actually effective. Traditionally, power follow these rules:
De Mesquita, B. B., Smith, A., Siverson, R. M., & Morrow, J. D. (2005). The logic of political survival. MIT press.
Which is echoed in the article:
> One current Amazon senior manager said they’ve consistently observed bosses new to the company use the principles “as weapons to put those who aren’t favorites in their place,” while employing other principles to build up their favorites.
I'd assume that the older management style that the article points out (from Bezos) was similar, but with different words; As these rules about power are consistent from governments, to companies, to home owners associations, etc. But the article paints a rosy picture of them, so it's not clear if there's something novel there, or just a dressed up version of the same old rules.
- > Chinese automakers have responded by cutting prices, leaving some competitors worried about a race to the bottom.
It's hard to compete against the Chinese government, especially when they want to have their cars get into every other country. Not clear why, but it may just be a similar approach to leverage debt/capital similar to Belt and Road.
- > The Luddites that machine-breaking was one of the very few tactics that workers could use to increase pressure on employers, undermine lower-paid competing workers, and create solidarity among workers.
These are just people concerned about how their livelihoods will likely be impacted by new technology. Certainly the owners aren't making allowances to support them during this transition, and so they have to take matters into their own hands.
> a central bank implements quantitative easing by buying financial assets from commercial banks and other financial institutions, thus raising the prices of those financial assets and lowering their yield, while simultaneously increasing the money supply.
see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantitative_easing
At least one cause of inflation is "increasing the money supply".
Piketty, T. (2014). Capital in the twenty-first century. Harvard University Press.