Hahaha! I saw that the minute I posted. I like the Washington Post's error correction window the most, a ten minute countdown, then chop... The one plus of ParamountPlus is it has all Showtime's series on a level with HBO's. Maybe there'll be no more? Netflix series are complained about as looking cheaper and it does seem no other US streamer will have enough income flow for new quality content. (Watch Peacock for hoped-for major sports income starting from this Olympics where they will offer every minute of all the sports.)
This is not happening because ComCast (NBC/Peacock) is one company, and ParamountPlus is another company (the former Viacom with Showtime & CBS). (In terms of stock value, Netflix losses are vastest, with ParamountPlus stock value next though stabilising.)
Because for the most part (Britbox is the biggest exception being BBC & ITV) it's not "their stuff". They rent. Content across all streaming services has many thousands of ultimate production-company owners. Max, ParamountPus, Netflix, Amazon, etc, actually own very little. And to continue to pay rent for shows nobody is watching makes no sense. So (quite logically) their selections are being narrowed down. (BTW Peacock has a huge sports area expected to finally make a buck at Olympics time.)
Above in (1) and (2) really is the ideal global development structure and a great majority of countries trust it and buy into it and contribute and gain a lot. Many, many fine Americans are involved and do try hard to help the development system work.
The main problem is the mode of US participation, a huge and erratic two-edged sword, in part because of its own messes, in part because of amateurism and ideology run amoke, and in part because it wants to see a vast profit (many billions) out of it all.
First, very partial list of interface problems at the US's own national and state levels. The US lacks almost all the development structure that should be parallel to the UN: eg no central "department of systems management" in parallel to the Fed and Treasury on financial management. There is this VAST and very costly layer of amateurish, meddling, ideological political appointees at the top - for what?! The Federal planning (oh?! You didnt know there is any?! Google GPRA) is totally top down, and disconnected from any nation-wide goals). Politician are mainly lawyers, not usually marvels at systems design enshrined in law; lobbiests write too many of those laws to profit from those systems. The national debt is out of sight. Taxes are out of sight for what benefits people actually get back. Government budgets are not divided into capital and recurrent to induce continuity. There is no systems education as such in schools, though main principles can be taught in 2-3 weeks. Academics are too prone to magic bullet solution from which they try to make a buck. Health and longevity trends aint exactly great. The 2008 financial collapse was a massive and totally predicted system failure (gee thanks Greenspan and Bush) and did massive harm to systems and people, especially in Red states, and around the world.
Second, inside of UN Development, the US is way too often a bull in a china shop, largely blind to systems complexities (systems are the very guts of the Asian "economic miracle"), incessantly peddling one or other ideology (especially via the World Bank where an American is ALWAYS president - why?), usually the disastrous neo-liberalism (the opposite of liberalism, which goes back to Reagan and Thatcher, see Marc Andreesen parroting it now), reluctant to learn from other nations, and never filtering down global-level achievements and breakthroughs to states and communities - and to your average joe.
Mass migrations from the disadvantaged south result. Putin results. Middle East instability results. Climate instability results. And Trumpism results! No surprise there, Trump being one of the greater systems klutzes of all time.
I hope the promising crowd here gets to chew on this one day.
Just after 1970 UN development was radically remodeled (following a major study and GA Resolution) to (1) see all of development as various levels & layers (think Russian dolls) of technical and managerial systems at core; to (2) abandon solely top-down processes; to (2) see that all systems invention & enhancement is don e in groups; to (4) spark local-level inventiveness and not any more follow a cookie-cutter approach (ignored only by the World Bank); to (5) not leave it to any country to have to muddle through on their own; and (6) to network their development processes to the max.
(The east & southern Asian "miracle" economies serially emerged on precisely these lines allowed these lines, and look where they are now. Russia in the 90s was an eager part of this, but then the US for no rational reason squeezed it out; no wonder Putin is ticked now.)
Processes, structures and tools are beyond what most American outsiders have any inkling of. Each “developed” & “developing” country should have (1) a central department for planning, development & systems change (most have); (2) separate capital-investment & recurrent budgets; and (3) rolling capacity plans refreshed periodically bottom-up with end-users involved.
When budgets are maximised and meddling minimised (your point about WHO is spot-on,) then budgets and staff are assigned, maybe consultants brought in, numerous study-tours and meetings launched, and central and local support structures (eg institutes) blended in (good examples: competent and helpful NIH).
Finally, the staff experts and visiting experts at UN agency and country levels are absolutely the world's best. They love this work. They travel and meet a lot, and seriously enhance many people's lives.
(Next: how despite vast profits from the UN, the US is too often a self-defeating two-edged sword.)
First, see the UN as in three non-hierarchical and largely disconnected parts (four if you include the rogue World Bank group with its ideological mission creep):
(1) The political/diplomatic arm (GA & SC) in NYC. (2) The various emergency "one-off" operations around the world. (3) The 30-plus agencies with their own budgets and governing bodies that permanently manage global systems enhancement via global working groups in their various assigned areas.
My comment above was suggesting much more focus here on (3) today. Each agency has its own budgets and guiding body, and is espoused by counterpart Departments or Ministries in each member state.
Example: the US Federal Communications Commission works massively with the UN's International Telecommunications Union (ITU) in Geneva on eg wavelengths and 5G and 6G. The FCC (a) pays its own way re the ITU governing body (it has Embassy staff in Geneva that help do that); (b) pays its own way re all the ITU working groups and may second staff to help; and (a) possibly puts in some or a lot to help other countries in need.
Development is and always has been about systems invention, spread. and enhancement, the vast majority of them not high-tech.
Neither Andreeson's weird straw-man nor Mike's quibbles even mention the 30-plus agencies of UN Development - by far the largest systems enhancement machine on Earth, involving millions in almost all sectors in all countries.
Telecoms systems? UN (ITU). National financial management systems? UN (IMF). Aviation systems? UN (ICAO). Health systems? UN (WHO). Weather systems? UN (WMO). Maritime systems? UN (IMO). Education systems? UN (UNESCO). Agriculture systems? UN (FAO). Trade? UN (UNCTAD). And so on.
It's at that level that enhancements with real teeth take effect, not in Silicon Valley.
Techdirt has not posted any stories submitted by Peter Quennell NYC.
"ParamountPus... Great nickname for that one."
Hahaha! I saw that the minute I posted. I like the Washington Post's error correction window the most, a ten minute countdown, then chop... The one plus of ParamountPlus is it has all Showtime's series on a level with HBO's. Maybe there'll be no more? Netflix series are complained about as looking cheaper and it does seem no other US streamer will have enough income flow for new quality content. (Watch Peacock for hoped-for major sports income starting from this Olympics where they will offer every minute of all the sports.)
"For instance, the subheader above should be in TWO parts."
AI in training? Not bad, but it's actually "the subheader should read #2 not #1".
"... companies like Comcast are taking unprofitable shows that were made for NBC or failed theatrical runs, throwing them on Paramount+"
This is not happening because ComCast (NBC/Peacock) is one company, and ParamountPlus is another company (the former Viacom with Showtime & CBS). (In terms of stock value, Netflix losses are vastest, with ParamountPlus stock value next though stabilising.)
"I don’t understand why they don’t just license their stuff to Netflix."
Because for the most part (Britbox is the biggest exception being BBC & ITV) it's not "their stuff". They rent. Content across all streaming services has many thousands of ultimate production-company owners. Max, ParamountPus, Netflix, Amazon, etc, actually own very little. And to continue to pay rent for shows nobody is watching makes no sense. So (quite logically) their selections are being narrowed down. (BTW Peacock has a huge sports area expected to finally make a buck at Olympics time.)
Oops
Final post 3 is above posts 1 & 2. Good luck all.
Response to Anonymous Coward On UN (3)
Above in (1) and (2) really is the ideal global development structure and a great majority of countries trust it and buy into it and contribute and gain a lot. Many, many fine Americans are involved and do try hard to help the development system work. The main problem is the mode of US participation, a huge and erratic two-edged sword, in part because of its own messes, in part because of amateurism and ideology run amoke, and in part because it wants to see a vast profit (many billions) out of it all. First, very partial list of interface problems at the US's own national and state levels. The US lacks almost all the development structure that should be parallel to the UN: eg no central "department of systems management" in parallel to the Fed and Treasury on financial management. There is this VAST and very costly layer of amateurish, meddling, ideological political appointees at the top - for what?! The Federal planning (oh?! You didnt know there is any?! Google GPRA) is totally top down, and disconnected from any nation-wide goals). Politician are mainly lawyers, not usually marvels at systems design enshrined in law; lobbiests write too many of those laws to profit from those systems. The national debt is out of sight. Taxes are out of sight for what benefits people actually get back. Government budgets are not divided into capital and recurrent to induce continuity. There is no systems education as such in schools, though main principles can be taught in 2-3 weeks. Academics are too prone to magic bullet solution from which they try to make a buck. Health and longevity trends aint exactly great. The 2008 financial collapse was a massive and totally predicted system failure (gee thanks Greenspan and Bush) and did massive harm to systems and people, especially in Red states, and around the world. Second, inside of UN Development, the US is way too often a bull in a china shop, largely blind to systems complexities (systems are the very guts of the Asian "economic miracle"), incessantly peddling one or other ideology (especially via the World Bank where an American is ALWAYS president - why?), usually the disastrous neo-liberalism (the opposite of liberalism, which goes back to Reagan and Thatcher, see Marc Andreesen parroting it now), reluctant to learn from other nations, and never filtering down global-level achievements and breakthroughs to states and communities - and to your average joe. Mass migrations from the disadvantaged south result. Putin results. Middle East instability results. Climate instability results. And Trumpism results! No surprise there, Trump being one of the greater systems klutzes of all time. I hope the promising crowd here gets to chew on this one day.
Thanks!
That made me laugh. I thought everybody was long-gone here but there seemed such a shortfall in this thread.
Erk!
Nice site sofware this but is it trying to edit posts? What I cut & paste ends up a bit changed. EG the subheader above should be TWO.
Response to Anonymous Coward On UN (2 of 3)
- How UN systems change actually works
Just after 1970 UN development was radically remodeled (following a major study and GA Resolution) to (1) see all of development as various levels & layers (think Russian dolls) of technical and managerial systems at core; to (2) abandon solely top-down processes; to (2) see that all systems invention & enhancement is don e in groups; to (4) spark local-level inventiveness and not any more follow a cookie-cutter approach (ignored only by the World Bank); to (5) not leave it to any country to have to muddle through on their own; and (6) to network their development processes to the max. (The east & southern Asian "miracle" economies serially emerged on precisely these lines allowed these lines, and look where they are now. Russia in the 90s was an eager part of this, but then the US for no rational reason squeezed it out; no wonder Putin is ticked now.) Processes, structures and tools are beyond what most American outsiders have any inkling of. Each “developed” & “developing” country should have (1) a central department for planning, development & systems change (most have); (2) separate capital-investment & recurrent budgets; and (3) rolling capacity plans refreshed periodically bottom-up with end-users involved. When budgets are maximised and meddling minimised (your point about WHO is spot-on,) then budgets and staff are assigned, maybe consultants brought in, numerous study-tours and meetings launched, and central and local support structures (eg institutes) blended in (good examples: competent and helpful NIH). Finally, the staff experts and visiting experts at UN agency and country levels are absolutely the world's best. They love this work. They travel and meet a lot, and seriously enhance many people's lives. (Next: how despite vast profits from the UN, the US is too often a self-defeating two-edged sword.)Response to Anonymous Coward On UN (1)
Okay. Good points. Response in 3 parts.
- So we don’t talk apples &oranges here...
First, see the UN as in three non-hierarchical and largely disconnected parts (four if you include the rogue World Bank group with its ideological mission creep): (1) The political/diplomatic arm (GA & SC) in NYC. (2) The various emergency "one-off" operations around the world. (3) The 30-plus agencies with their own budgets and governing bodies that permanently manage global systems enhancement via global working groups in their various assigned areas. My comment above was suggesting much more focus here on (3) today. Each agency has its own budgets and guiding body, and is espoused by counterpart Departments or Ministries in each member state. Example: the US Federal Communications Commission works massively with the UN's International Telecommunications Union (ITU) in Geneva on eg wavelengths and 5G and 6G. The FCC (a) pays its own way re the ITU governing body (it has Embassy staff in Geneva that help do that); (b) pays its own way re all the ITU working groups and may second staff to help; and (a) possibly puts in some or a lot to help other countries in need.Vast UN systems development machine not even mentioned?
Development is and always has been about systems invention, spread. and enhancement, the vast majority of them not high-tech. Neither Andreeson's weird straw-man nor Mike's quibbles even mention the 30-plus agencies of UN Development - by far the largest systems enhancement machine on Earth, involving millions in almost all sectors in all countries. Telecoms systems? UN (ITU). National financial management systems? UN (IMF). Aviation systems? UN (ICAO). Health systems? UN (WHO). Weather systems? UN (WMO). Maritime systems? UN (IMO). Education systems? UN (UNESCO). Agriculture systems? UN (FAO). Trade? UN (UNCTAD). And so on. It's at that level that enhancements with real teeth take effect, not in Silicon Valley.