How are Netflix created contents profitable? I guess Netflix pays shows based on user time spent, and a Netflix show is profitable if users spend time on it, and not on other shows?
I actually think that’s the opposite of Netflix. TV shows rarely make it past a second season, as soon as there’s even a mild drop in viewing figures they drop a property like a hot potato.
Note the OP's algo was *while* profitable. You're focused on shows that never make it. I think this is true of the cash cows, while dogs are historically (with only one or two channels so limited broadcast bandwidth) networks could be far more brutal while Netflix needs a much bigger catalog.
Game of thrones problem wasnt going on too long quite the opposite. The show runners were assholes to the author of the books their show was based on and he wouldn't work with them anymore then when they got an offer from Disney they decided to cut the show short and finish it one season and cut major character development to get to the pre determined ending resulting in people having sudden character changes or clever characters start carrying the idot ball.
One good thing about electric vehicles is that regenerative breaking effectively eradicates brake pad use and pollution. Only tire dust remains significant.
If we could incentivize small, lightweight electric vehicles over the current trend of large (heavy) luxury vehicles, there would be a lot of benefits. I’d like a trend towards “easy and safe motorcycle” instead of our current “living room that moves itself.”
Sadly, fossil fuel (pollution) has been marketed as a masculine culture thing now. In the free (=individualistic) West, I expect it to stick around for at least another 50 years.
I expect less than 10. Once you drive an EV, every big noisy diesel feels impotent and gutless. Kind of like a small yappy dog that’s all bark and no bite. There’s just nothing like the zero-lag gut-punching acceleration of an EV.
The industry is trying their best to fight against it. The EU is currently planning to ban new ICE cars from 2035, but the conservative German government & car lobbyists are trying to get them to drop those plans... That, combined with high tariffs for cheap asian EVs will probably artificially keep us on ICEs for a while longer.
Unfortunately it's not really up to us plebs, it's up to the rich and powerful, who have every incentive in the world to continue fossil fuel use.
Trump has outright said he's pro fossil fuels and his policy choice shows it. If there was a proposal to ban or limit EVs in the US, I would not at all be surprised. These people do not care about you or me or all, just their pocket linings.
And all the while, nothing is done to get old 2-stroke mopeds of the road in Europe. It’s such a low hanging fruit to get those hyper polluters out of cities but in an individualistic society, personal cult status seems more important than common health.
The problem is that they are not cost competitive at the time of sales and the type of people who buy those are not exactly the smartest when it comes to total cost of ownership calculation.
Over time an electric version would be much cheaper (a few hundred kilometers depending on electricity price) but it's also not as convenient/capable/performant so it's a not exactly an easy sell to the target customer.
I do agree that they are highly annoying but the reality is that they are still in use because there is no real equivalency in the electric world.
Companies should be forced to hand over the communication and operation specification of their IoT devices as soon as they meaningfully degrade the quality or functionality of a cloud service. This will restore trust in the ecosystem, avoid ewaste, and nourish a community of developers/hackers/geeks/users.
That would be ideal, but this sort of changes the topic from reliability to interoperability.
I’m pretty sure this is merely temporary state of things, as IoT is still a novelty and most people are unaware about new failure modes.
I hope - as the realization becomes common - the demand for devices that will keep working until they mechanically break is going to eventually become a marketing point.
I suppose we can hope, but I don't see the trend going that way. Without some kind of regulatory support, there's not much incentive for anyone to pursue that. It will be more profitable to produce tons of crap that breaks quickly so that people have to buy another one.
> Without some kind of regulatory support, there's not much incentive for anyone to pursue that.
I’m not sure there isn’t an incentive. For me it’s pretty clear one - I’m trying my best to avoid buying products that would likely fail to work. I did that couple times, I recognized and understood the issue, now I try to avoid repeating the same mistake.
Right now I’m in a minority, and my choices are limited or even nonexistent. Most folks out there haven’t yet tried and haven’t yet experienced the failures. Or had too few of those to mentally register. Either way, only a few vendors cater to our needs. So in the interim I have to settle for lesser evils, hunting for products that I can hack.
Yet, when I’ll - inevitably - become a part of a majority (as more and more people have similar experiences), I’m sure vendors will stat recognizing the demand and try marketing on reliability and independence.
I don't think you're going to become part of a majority, or at least not via that path. Companies are competing on obfuscation. Most people don't have the energy to even attempt to determine which companies are reliable. People will just drift from one provider to another, hoping each will be better than the last. Also, there's no way to know if they're going to rugpull until after they do so. Unless there are some consequences for doing that, it's too easy for people to set up a company, sell crap that will stop working, shut down, and then just start up a new company. There has to be some kind of force directing customers to the companies that will do a good job.
Maybe you're right, but I hope you're not. Only time would tell for sure.
I believe you're underestimating "most people". Yes, sure, today it requires a lot of specialized knowledge to determine reliability. But if you try a lot of times you eventually notice the pattern and start asking more and more meaningful questions. Such as "does it work without Internet" or "can I disable updates"? That's the whole history of humanity - we try various things, learning as we go, refining our search directions as we learn.
Indeed, some niches, particularly those with high entry barriers, are not healthy. They lack proper competition and feedback mechanisms are broken by severe disparities. Those niches can be disrupted either through regulation (feedback through an alternative channel) or mass consumer action (amplified feedback).
I'm optimistic because I'm seeing signals that suggest companies explore all possible directions. For example, GE appliances have pretty much open control and diagnostic ports, with official SDK and corporate blessing to make enthusiast projects to extend appliance capabilities (with some caveats, e.g. SDK is not fully complete). When I was looking for a new washer and dryer machines GE became my obvious choice. And then there's also example of Kagi that sort of brought my faith in humanity, showing that wherever there's a demand, even if very niche, even if not fully realized by many, good things can and actually do happen. Sure, things are progressing very slowly, but as long as people can think and say "no, I'm unhappy about this and I don't want it" I'm sure we'll be eventually fine.
In the meanwhile, to accelerate, I guess best we can do is spread the awareness.
The availability of such large amounts of energy just delays our actions to make our energy use more efficient. We burn liters of gasoline to move a single person a few kilometers. This is not efficient and only made possible by fossil fuel energy abundance (for now, it's borrowed time).
The source in your [0] link says China fossil fuel subsidies were $2235B in that year. Your [1] link says "Renewable Energy Still Dominates Energy Subsidies in FY 2022" and "traditional fuels (coal, natural gas, oil and nuclear) received just 15 percent of all subsidies between FY 2016 and FY 2022", so the two numbers you've given are clearly counting very different things.
I'm referring to Jimmy Carter's policies that helped kick start solar research prior to the baton being passed off to private industry post a viability threshold being surpassed.
We are all likely complicit. When gas prices go up people lose their shit so politicians try not to let that happen thus massive subsidies. Plus it's strategically important.
People also absolutely lose their shit when someone does something like build a bike lane, or proposes letting the market allocate automobile storage for housing and businesses, rather than having a local jurisdiction invent some numbers.
reply