If AI lets a less skilled worker to the work that currently requires a more skilled worker, why wouldn't companies just fire all the more skilled workers and use less skilled workers instead? It would cut the payroll since less skilled workers are more plentiful and cheaper. No one seems to have offered a clue as to how this will create middle wage jobs. Worse, this seems to assume that companies are run by profit minimizing morons. They may be run by morons, but they are not run by profit minimizing morons. If you can pay someone minimum wage and get the work you'd get from someone getting a premium, surely that money goes to the managers and shareholders. This is the logic that says lower taxes will increase investment since having more money for managers, moronic or otherwise, and shareholders will somehow create an increased demand for a product. There just aren't enough managers or shareholders to make that happen.
It has always been about control. A media company will go bankrupt while people are pressing millions of dollars on them rather than not being able to jerk people around. When VCRs became common in the 1980s, the media companies lost a level of control thanks to the first sale doctrine. They've been working hard to reclaim it, and now they have thanks to streaming and DRM technology. It took 40 years, but we're back in the 1950s again.
There was an old tradition in England of aristocrats not paying tradesmen. It's now a major piece of conservative policy. Look at the current debt ceiling standoff in Washington. Arrange for goods and services, then refuse to pay for them. So much for the sanctity of contracts. It's part and parcel of the Republican mindset. Being a Republican should knock 100 points off one's credit score.
Back when pay-per-view television was a big business, Marriott, the big hotel chain based in Utah, was the biggest porn dealer in the state. It led to an amusing conflict of interests.
You would imagine that Mercedes was worried about brand dilution. One of the things people who pay a lot tend to dislike is not getting nickled and dimed. The airlines have dozens of charges in economy class, but a business class ticket includes baggage checking, seat selection, meals and so on. It looks like Mercedes wants to compete with Spirit Airlines in this regard. If you want your seat back to recline, you pay extra. Will the Robb Report start having articles on how to game the system? They could offer advice on bundling tiers, what addons to go for and which to avoid. You know, the kind of stuff rich people like. Having to play stupid games like that isn't most peoples ideas of the luxe life. Is Luis Vuitton next with separate charges for the better leather finish or a brushed brass buckle on their supposedly top of the line handbag? I'm more of a Honda Civic guy, but if I ever decide to splurge on a fancy car, maybe I'll test drive Mercedes new Nickel und Groschen.
Musk is a typical right winger, completely craven. He loves the taste of boot leather. He'll grovel nicely if you are the Chinese communist party or an Indian fascist. If you are just a decent person but don't kick him hard and often, he will think you are weak and not respect you.
Musk has a long history of criminal behavior. It's no surprise that he hopes that ignoring laws about user privacy and paying one's rent only apply to the little people. Like many criminals, he respects strength. One never hears a whimper when the CCP grinds its boot on him in China. This is no time to go soft on crime.
Twitter had a big problem with impersonation for years until they took a Who's Who approach for authenticating the accounts of users of note. It was an improvement that solved a real problem. Musk eliminated that mechanism and simply offered "authentication" to anyone who was willing to pay a nominal fee. It's a serious step backwards. Twitter provides a telecommunications service even if it is not a common carrier. It has eliminated a major anti-fraud feature. Sure, users should know that blue check marks don't mean anything, but that's putting the onus on the wrong parties. A while back Ars Technica had an article on services that let one grab SMS traffic for a given number for a nominal fee. Sure, users should know that SMS communications are unreliable and insecure, but that's putting the onus on the wrong parties. There was also a recent article at Pluralistic about browsers trusting questionable certificate authorities. Sure, the little lock symbol might not mean one should trust a web site, but, again, that is putting the onus on the wrong parties. This is exactly the kind of thing that Congress, including the Senate, should be addressing. There are parties who want to be identified and authenticated for a broad variety of reasons, personal, political, commercial and otherwise. There are parties who want to have a way of authenticating electronic communications. They want something that they can trust whether it is a little lock symbol, an SMS phone number or a blue check mark.
Any discussion of PACER should mention RECAP which is a browser extension that shortcuts PACER searches. If a RECAP user has already searched for the document, it provides that version. Otherwise, it captures the result from PACER. You may still have to pay for some documents, but others will benefit. I know a lot of lawyers barely notice PACER fees. Back in the 1970s, four cents a copy was a Xerox breakthrough, and that's over a dime a page now. Still, there is the principle of the thing.
If companies keep doing share buybacks, eventually there will be only a handful of shareholders with each of the handful of shares remaining worth billions. They'll still be owned by greedy bastards who will want a good, ever increasing return on their massive investment.
One problem that streamers have with offering both a no-ad pay and a no-pay ad-supported option is that the pay option has the better demographics for advertisers.
This is the kind of garbage one reads about as hindering development in Africa. A group of guys with guns, sometimes in an official capacity, sometimes not, set up a roadblock and stop every car and demand some kind of payment if you want to move on. Unlike the police here, they usually just demand a cut rather than the whole thing.
Darned. We missed a golden opportunity for the FEC to impose a Fairness Rule which would allow one spam message through their filters for each spam message allowed through for the other side. Voters on both sides would appreciate that a political party could win votes by not sending out spam.
Aren't those drills just grooming children to be victims of mass murderers?
In law school they say: If you have the facts, pound the facts. If you don't have the facts but you have the law, pound the law. If you don't have the facts or the law, pound the table. I think Musk's team is pounding the table.
One of the reasons Frankenstein is still so popular after two centuries is that Shelley never tried enforcing her rights when countless stage adaptations and other derivative works appeared starting shortly after the book was published. The author noted that many more people knew her story and character through unlicensed works than had read the book. Amusingly, Frankenstein's deformed assistant, not in the book, appeared even in early productions, originally as Fritz but soon after as the canonical Igor.
Back when people had 8mm projectors and movie cameras, a number of movies were released in short single reel versions. They were obviously heavily edited. They were often westerns or adventures and movies aimed at children. None of them ever won an Oscar.
You wouldn't want to corrupt some kid who just trying to relax with a cool one.
An interesting parallel is the law on whether one can electioneer or protest politically in a shopping mall. In the 70s and 80s, malls took the place of town centers. Town centers were public spaces, so, as long as one didn't block the way or cause a disturbance, one could protest or voice political preferences as one chose. That right did not exist in malls as they were private property even though they served the function of town centers. (Of course, the mall thing is increasingly moot as malls are closing and contracting.)
Animal monitoring
I suppose they should have had an instrument that could track what the bear was eating and its location but not its surroundings. Maybe a mouthcam. I had a friend who was in the CIA and stationed in Iran in the early 1950s. He said they caught a dog with a camera placed by the Russians. Clearly, both sides during the Cold War had some weird ideas.