Tharrulous's recent activity
-
Comment on Denmark ending letter deliveries is a sign of the digital times in ~society
-
Denmark ending letter deliveries is a sign of the digital times
19 votes -
Comment on What have you been watching / reading this week? (Anime/Manga) in ~anime
Tharrulous (edited )Link ParentLink Click (by the same director) If you liked To Be Hero X, I'd also recommend checking out Li Haoling's previous work, Link Click. It's a 2D animated time-travel mystery / thriller, with high...Link Click (by the same director)
If you liked To Be Hero X, I'd also recommend checking out Li Haoling's previous work, Link Click. It's a 2D animated time-travel mystery / thriller, with high production quality, really tight pacing, and emotional gut-punch moments.
Pacing is similar to To Be Hero X, dropping you right into the premise straight from the start. It's got well-structured storytelling, with little details that pay off in big ways later. Link Click builds tension like crazy and drops heavy plot twists, some that hit you like an emotional sucker punch (in one episode, I genuinely cried).
Its time travel concept is extremely well executed. The premise starts off with two friends who can glean the past via photos, taking cases from people who request their services. The main character enters photos by being the photo-taker for 12 hours. His friend guides him from the present and keeps him on track. While the MC is in the past, he bears the emotions and memories of the person he's possessing. This causes tension with the one strict rule they've agreed to: the MC must never change the past no matter what; the past ought to occur as it did.
Despite the differing premise, you can see Li Haoling developing his distinct "show don't tell" approach to storytelling.
I think the original Chinese sub is the best, but the English dub is still pretty good (don't recommend the Japanese dub. It's been cut and edited to fit television slots).
Also, season 2's opening is amazing. Very unique concept, where the second half of the song is the first half reversed. Personally, it's in my top 10 anime openings.
-
Comment on Your favorite YouTube channel is (probably) owned by private equity in ~creative
Tharrulous (edited )Link ParentThis trend undermines the creativity and uniqueness that made OG YouTube compelling, where independent creators took more creative risks. My thoughts: The channels described in this video are...This trend undermines the creativity and uniqueness that made OG YouTube compelling, where independent creators took more creative risks.
My thoughts:
The channels described in this video are merely the publicly known acquisitions. Since channels aren't obligated to disclose private equity ownership and would prefer to keep quiet, it's likely other popular channels you watch have been approached by PE firms.
Linus mentioned he turned down a $100 million offer. But it's not just the giants. Even smaller channels have been offered a buyout.
These firms do like to target specific niches, like the education space. Also noticeable in the science, economics, financial, or geopolitics spaces.
In an unstable industry, I can understand why Youtubers would choose a massive payday. Especially if they wish to retire from YT. However, I hope they understand what they're doing to their reputation and their channels. (This is private equity after all, they'll squeeze blood from a marble if they could!)
That's why i commend people like Tom Scott, who choose to bow out gracefully, staying true to his principles.
-
Comment on Your favorite YouTube channel is (probably) owned by private equity in ~creative
Tharrulous (edited )LinkPrivate Equity (PE) firms have raised billions of dollars to acquire YouTube channels as strategic investments. Some acquired channels include: Veritasium Dude Perfect Donut Media the Game...Private Equity (PE) firms have raised billions of dollars to acquire YouTube channels as strategic investments.
Some acquired channels include:
- Veritasium
- Dude Perfect
- Donut Media
- the Game Theorists
- Fern
- Mentour Pilot
- Simple History
- Task and Purposes
- Economics Explained
- VTubers
- and numerous, numerous other popular channels you've probably heard of.
These acquisitions are driven because:
- PE firms have saturated existing asset markets. So, they are looking for anything with potential.
- Legacy media companies are losing viewership from traditional mediums (like cable) and need to pivot.
- Their initial foreray into this space failed (see: the fall of new media companies like Vice, Buzzfeed).
As a result, these acquisitions now target individual YouTube content creators, who are more flexible and can target specific audiences and niches. These channels then start shifting towards more generic, safe, and algorithm-friendly content to meet investor demands for growth, often sacrificing creativity for predictability.
With the pressure to increase revenue, these channels pump out more videos with less accuracy & fact-checking, drop creatively risky ideas, and host more questionable sponsorships. Or worse, push out blatant videos-as-ads (*cough* Veritasium *cough*)
Also, while YouTube channels can make a lot of money, they represent high-risk investments because they often depend on a single personality (who could quit, create competing channels, or risk controversy). These firms mitigate this by pushing new hosts, launching sister channels, requiring approved scripts, creating branded products, merch etc.
You may have already noticed this trend. New videos from many previously-reputable YouTube channels that now feel uninspired, samey, and have shifted towards trend-chasing. If so, there's a chance it's been acquired.
-
Your favorite YouTube channel is (probably) owned by private equity
45 votes -
Comment on OpenAI to release web browser in challenge to Google Chrome in ~tech
Tharrulous (edited )Link ParentThe second comment echoes my thoughts as well. Only 3 large search indexers exist: Google, Bing, and Yandex. All alternate search engines must use some combination of the above for a usable search...The second comment echoes my thoughts as well.
Only 3 large search indexers exist: Google, Bing, and Yandex. All alternate search engines must use some combination of the above for a usable search engine with good results.
This puts alternate search engines in a precarious position. Placed in an undesirable negotiating position, any change from these major indexers could massively impact their service. Or worse, potentially destroy it!
About two years ago, Kagi experienced a crisis after Microsoft raised the price of their indexer API by 225% (from 1.25 cents to 2.8 cents per search!). As a result, their once unlimited premium plan was downgraded to a mere 700 searches per month. This stagnated their previously upward trajectory, leading users to unsubscribe, slowing down new sign-ups, and flatlining growth.
During this crisis, Kagi was forced to reduce their dependence on Bing and insulate themselves from unilateral API changes. Like what the other commenter said, if you don't like the entrenched Google/Microsoft duopoly, your only other option is Yandex.
This setback was not easily resolved. It took half a year to find alternatives and reduce their reliance on Microsoft. Only after they felt comfortable reinstating their unlimited search plan, did their trajectory finally improve.
Two months ago, something devastating happened in the search API sphere:
Microsoft shuts off Bing Search APIs and recommends switching to AI — "Third-party app developers won’t be able to access Bing Search data from August 11th onwards"
Here's the fundamental problem: had Kagi still relied on Microsoft and not insulated themselves from these unilateral API changes, they would have been completely screwed! Less than a month to find alternatives? That's hardly any time! Microsoft would only negotiate with the big players, leaving small developers in its wake scrambling.
Kagi successfully avoided this business-destroying crisis by having alternatives. Yes, that does also mean using Yandex as a search indexer. But, in the alternate search engine market, that isn't something easily avoided — at least, if you want to avoid the
Microsoft/Googleduopolymonopoly. -
Comment on Netflix says fifty percent of global users now watch anime, reveals expanded slate in ~anime
Tharrulous (edited )LinkAlternate link: https://archive.md/YyNv5 Interestingly, The vast majority of these Netflix users do not watch anime subbed. This is definitely a sign of how mainstream anime has become. Netflix...Alternate link: https://archive.md/YyNv5
Interestingly,
80 to 90 percent of users opt to watch anime dubbed.
The vast majority of these Netflix users do not watch anime subbed. This is definitely a sign of how mainstream anime has become.
To capitalize on the demand, Netflix has begun offering anime titles with dubbed audio and descriptions in up to 33 languages.
Netflix has really been doubling down on anime lately. They're pouring in a significant amount of resources into it. Not only have they've backed a bunch of adaptations of major properties, such as Cyberpunk:Edgerunners and Terminator Zero (both very well-received), they've even brought in big-name actors like Rosario Dawson, Timothy Olyphant, Giancarlo Esposito for these dubs. Which is absolutely crazy.
Goes to show how massive the global growth in anime has been.
-
Netflix says fifty percent of global users now watch anime, reveals expanded slate
23 votes -
Comment on Melbourne's project to remove level rail/road crossings has many benefits in ~transport
Tharrulous (edited )Link ParentIn the Australian context, Melbourne had a particularly high number of rail level crossings. There were once a couple hundred of them in the metropolitan area. Removing them was always a piecemeal...In the Australian context, Melbourne had a particularly high number of rail level crossings. There were once a couple hundred of them in the metropolitan area.
Removing them was always a piecemeal affair. From 1980-2014, only 20 total crossings were removed, in a sporadic and discontinuous manner.
Every project required their own specialised engineering and construction teams, supply chains, custom-built structures, train-replacements buses, etc. Once the project had finished, everything would wind down, only to be required again years later.
In 2014, an ambitious project called the Level Crossing Removal Project, was proposed. It pledged to remove 50 crossings within a few years.
A major benefit of removing all these level crossings at once is the huge economies of scale. Fixed costs can be split across numerous projects. For example:
- Engineering and construction teams now move from one project to the next.
- Many structures are now standardised and there is less custom project-specific design.
- A dedicated supply chain can continuously manufacture structures.
- Train-replacements buses are more efficiently utilised. So much so that dedicated train-replacement bus fleets now exist, which also benefits existing operations during unscheduled disruptions.
This project has become so successful it has been expanded numerous times. Currently, 84 crossings have been removed, 44 train stations rebuilt, and 110 crossings will be gone by 2030.
Overall, per-project costs have been considerably reduced, and more level crossings have been removed since 2014 than during the history of the network prior.
Due to the scale, you can start to do really cool things. Because many of these crossings are being removed at the same time, it opens up opportunities to create continuous viaducts over many kilometres. This connects the communities split by the tracks back together. The freed-up land underneath can be used for parkland, bike paths, trails, playgrounds, outdoor gyms, basketball, and more.
This photo is a good example of the great outcomes you can achieve with scale.
(check the Wikipedia link above for more photos)
This project really goes to show that if you want more infrastructure at a lower cost, you really need to be constantly building. You can't have intermittent one-off projects, or all that institutional knowledge, scale, and cost reduction will disappear.
-
Comment on Denmark's plan to eliminate parallel societies has drawn criticism as ethnic discrimination. Others in Europe may be watching. in ~society
Tharrulous LinkArchive: archive.md/q9eDZArchive: archive.md/q9eDZ
-
Comment on What's next for Kagi? in ~tech
Tharrulous Link ParentUnfortunately, due to their current dependency with other indexer APIs, per-search costs are mostly fixed and cannot be easily scaled. About a year ago, Kagi experienced a crisis after Microsoft...Unfortunately, due to their current dependency with other indexer APIs, per-search costs are mostly fixed and cannot be easily scaled.
About a year ago, Kagi experienced a crisis after Microsoft raised the price of their indexer API by 225% (from 1.25 cents to 2.8 cents per search!). As a result, their once unlimited premium plan was downgraded to only 700 searches per month. This stagnated their previously upward trajectory, leading users to unsubscribe, slowing down new sign-ups, and flatlining growth.
Fortunately, they successfully navigated through the crisis and have now reinstated their unlimited search plan.
Hopefully, as Kagi continues to expand their own indexer, they can reduce their reliance on these fixed costs, eventually introducing regional pricing.
-
Comment on Former Square Enix exec on why Final Fantasy sales don’t meet expectations and chances of recouping insane AAA budgets in ~games
Tharrulous (edited )LinkThis article is based on this Twitter thread by Jacob Navok, a former Square Enix Exec. It identifies and analyses many of the issues plaguing the gaming industry today (e.g. bloated budgets,...- Exemplary
This article is based on this Twitter thread by Jacob Navok, a former Square Enix Exec.
It identifies and analyses many of the issues plaguing the gaming industry today (e.g. bloated budgets, live-service, Triple-A, sustainability of the industry, etc.). See below:
Avoiding Twitter? Click Here. Part I
A thread on the recent Square Enix news regarding FF sales numbers and expectations
• As a reminder I reported to two CEOs of Square Enix for the better part of a decade and ran a subsidiary. I also correctly predicted last year that Square Enix was going to break exclusivity. I'll note I have no confidential information that I'm basing my arguments on.
• To start, we need to look at decisions made on the titles under development within the lens of 2015-2022, not the lens of 2023. For example, FF16 would have started pre-production prior to the release of FF15, which was released in 2016.
• This is a pre-Fortnite era. Budgets for FF7 Remake and into Rebirth would have been around this period too. This is important to note and we will get back to it.
• There's a misunderstanding that has been repeated for nearly a decade and a half that Square Enix sets arbitrarily high sales requirements then gets upset when its arbitrarily high sales requirements fail to be met.
• This was not true when I was there and is unlikely to be true today.
• Sales expectations generally come from a need to cover the cost of development plus return on investment.
ResetEra Forums: Does Square Enix has realistic sales expectations for their games?• If a game costs $100m to make, and takes 5 years, then you have to beat, as an example, what the business could have returned investing $100m into the stock market over that period.
• For the 5 years prior to Feb 2024, the stock market averaged a rate of return of 14.5%. Investing that $100m in the stock market would net you a return of $201m, so this is our ROI baseline.
• Can the game net a return higher than this after marketing, platform fees, and discounts are factored in?
• This is actually a very hard equation though it seems simple; the $70 that the consumer pays only returns $49 after 30% platform fees, and the platforms will generally get a recoup on any funds spent on exclusivity meaning until they are paid back, they will keep that cash. Plus, discounts start almost immediately.
• Assume marketing expenses at $50m, and assume that you're not going to get $49 but rather an average closer to $40 given discounts, returns and other aspects. Now let's say in that first month you sold 3m copies with $40 net received (we will ignore the recoup). You need to surpass $254m to make expectations. (That's $100m + $101m in ROI baseline + $50m in marketing).
• At 3m copies with $40 per copy received, you've only made $120m. You're far off.
IGN: Final Fantasy 16 sold 3 Million copies during launch week• From the statements made, it will take FF16 eighteen months to hit expected sales. (I used the stock market as an example but actual ROI should be higher than stock market averages).
• The sales figures required aren't wild expectations; the number of copies sold were too low. And my numbers are actually much lower than realities (game dev costs are probably 2x as high, and marketing is also likely 2x as high, and this makes ROI requirements higher too).
• But that's not even the core of the problem, this is just me proving that expectations aren't set immodestly.
• The core of the problem is that the budgets were set in a period where the expectation was that audiences would grow.
• Total audience growth was a reasonable expectation in the 2015-2022 era and still is today. Not only had the industry grown significantly each year, but each day that new generations were coming of age, they were coming of age as gamers. Meaning that your total addressable population should be increasing and you should be increasing your revenue.
• What's happened? Not just to Square Enix, but to the industry as a whole? Audience behavioral patterns are radically different than expected in 2015. Remember, I said 2015 was pre-Fortnite.
• The way it used to work was that you'd pick your release date similar to a Hollywood movie, stick to it, and consider the competition to be the titles releasing the weeks before and after.
• We would look at a Hitman or a Deus Ex release and consider whether there was a Call of Duty or Assassin's Creed coming out around that time, assuming that gamers had X amount of money to spend and Y amount of time, and that if we wanted to get the full sticker price (remember, discounts eat into cash received and also at that time, used disc sales were $0 cash received) we needed to get as many sales in the first two weeks as possible.
• At that time, as a gamer, once you finished the most recent game you were on, you moved onto the next. You were looking for your next title once you finished the prior one. We wanted one of our titles to be the next title you bought to fill your gamer needs.
• This world radically changed in the last 6 years.
(cont'd)
Part II
• Earlier this month Kotaku had an article called "9 Great Games We Can't Stop Thinking About." There's a surprise 10th slide, and that is Fortnite.
• @ZwiezenZ writes in the article: "And once again, another weekend arrives and I realize that I'll be spending most of it playing Fortnite. I'm very close to maxing out both my battle pass and Festival pass, so that's the plan.
• I hate how deep Fortnite has its hooks in me — to the point where I'm choosing to play it over brand-new, cool-looking video games — but I can't help it. I must finish these damn passes, get all the rewards, and earn the right to play other stuff. Well, until the next season starts up and I once again return to Fortnite to drop in and level up all over again. It's sick. I hate myself. I can't wait to play more this weekend."
Kotaku's Weekend Guide: 9 incredible games we can’t stop thinking about• This is indeed the point. Square Enix are not competing against just the latest new installments, they are competing against every F2P online game that is constantly adding content and getting more robust over time.
• The assumption was that people would jump between products when they finished one. But, as you know, F2P games like Fortnite or Warzone are evergreen, they never get old. They are always updating with new content and experiences. They can continue for decades. Candy Crush has had its best years ever the last few years. And companies like Epic can continue to invest back into the products to make them better, creating even higher barriers to entry for competitors.
Reuters: Candy Crush Saga hits $20 billion revenue milestone, maker King says• The game industry is still growing in revenue but that revenue is increasingly captured by fewer live services games that are generating a level of stickiness seen in social media companies. There are reasons there are very few competitors to Facebook. Once the network effect starts, it can keep going for a long time. Since Instagram (also FB), the only real competitor in an entire decade that showed up and could quickly reach 1bn+ people was TikTok. And this is in a trillion dollar valued industry.
Kotaku: 60 percent of playtime in 2023 went to 6-year-old or older games, new data shows — A report shows that while the industry is growing, its biggest competition is Fortnite, GTA, Call of Duty, and Roblox
• I expect Fortnite, Roblox, Warzone, and similar products to continue to grow revenue. Meanwhile, put yourself in an older gamer's shoes: if you're a gamer with disposable income but less free time, and you have the choice of paying $70 to play 100 hours in FF16 or to just continue playing Fortnite with your friends for free, you'll wait to see the FF16 reviews before you decide whether to switch off FN.
• In other words, your switching costs (how good a game is, how exciting it needs to be) are now substantially higher than when you'd finish the latest Assassin's Creed and look for the next title to fill your time, because you’re awash with content options. Fortnite doesn't end.
• This is the reason we see trends where games are either spectacular 10/10 successes, or disasters, with little in between; there is no "next hit" being searched for in many cases. And this polarization makes risks higher, and costs higher too (we will get to this in a moment.)
• Now if you're a younger gamer in your teens, you may not even be thinking about FF. If you are 13 years old now, you were 5 years old when the last mainline FF, FF15, came out.
• Your family may not own a PS5 and you may not care. You're satisfied with Fortnite or Roblox or Minecraft with your friends on your phone or laptop. I'm not say that this is the case for everyone. But it is certainly a trend.
• The old AAA franchises do not seem to be converting the younger generations that the industry was counting on for growth, and instead F2P social games on mobile are where they spend their time.
• This is the reason every publisher chased live service titles; audiences clearly gravitated toward them, and profits followed in success. (It is surprising that Square Enix, which had successful F2P live service mobile titles in Japan, left the AAA live-service attempts to Eidos rather than try to build those products in Japan, but dissecting this problem would likely require an entirely different thread.)
• Regardless, the Fortnite-ization of the industry was not entirely predictable in 2015 when budgets were being planned. Even after FN came out and well into the Covid period, it felt like industry growth was pulling all ships forward, not just a handful. But that isn't what happened.
(cont'd)
Part III
• Now we have to get to the cost of development. Asset generation, motion capture, textures, animation, engineering, infrastructure are incredibly expensive. Making games costs a lot of money. The recent layoff wave is generally a consolidation toward a new expected sales average in the [fewer] number of titles being produced, not the cost of an individual title, which is going to continue to increase. (Spider-Man 2 cost $380m! )
• Development costs have gone up, and switching costs of the consumer has gone up, and as a result companies have to invest even more because it has to be a 10/10 or gamers will stick to Fortnite. (I don't literally mean FN, but similar types of products.)
• Meanwhile, FF7 Rebirth, which has a 92% Metacritic rating, can't get the sales it needs (though that's also complicated due to it being a sequel.) These factors mean the status quo must change.
Kotaku: What hacked files tell us about the studio behind Spider-Man 2• There are three levers you can pull to make the equation work for return on investment at a game company. You can decrease costs, increase price, or increase audience size. As noted, any non-service game is having trouble increasing audience size. Meanwhile, on the cost side, inflation is up, salaries are up, and consumers require sophisticated, beautiful products to get them to fork over cash rather than keep playing F2P titles.
• It is true that there are many smaller games or less beautiful games that generate audiences and are profitable. But something like Balatro is not a good example to point to. It's made by one person. AAA games can take hundreds, thousands of people to make. A single person making $2-3m in sales is life changing, a hundred people trying to split that is not enough money. And products like Balatro are lightning in a bottle, you can't generally capture that twice, and there are hundreds of thousands of competing products on Steam or App Stores that fail for every Balatro.
• This leaves only price left as a lever to pull. Since the price of games hasn't substantially increased, relative to inflation, package disc games have gotten cheaper over the last two decades. The assumption was that this was okay because the audience size would grow instead of price. But the audience went to the platform titles.
• Prices for packaged disc games will go up. Game companies have no choice, it is the only lever left. Just look at Kotaku's article about GTA6’s price point from this week:
Kotaku: GTA 6 could be the first game to push past $70• You're also seeing this trend with Ubisoft's Star Wars game
• It's not because game companies are penny pinchers looking to fleece their users. It's because this is the only path left to make non-F2P service titles workable in the AAA space given cost and competition.
• Something has to give; if SQEX can’t get its cost of dev down (it will go further up) and is getting good reviews but isn’t increasing audience, they and the rest of the publishers are going to have to increase price point. Otherwise live service titles will be all we have left.
reddit.com/r/pcgaming/.../star_wars_outlaws_$110_and_$130_editions_prompt_a/• There's another path that I can think of, which is increasing the take rate. If publishers can capture more of the platform side revenue, they can moderate price point increases while capturing a better return on investment because they'll be capturing say $50 or $55 out of $70.
• @TimSweeneyEpic knows this which is why he's fighting the good fight on platform fees, both at EGS and with the app stores, to open up PC and mobile ecosystems.
• This is also why you'll see MS and others take advantage of his fight and start their own app stores. (You would think MS would chip in for Epic's legal fees given they're capturing the benefits with no risk!)
• But this path will take time, and is very hard on consoles, where the AAA publishers make a lot of their money, so expect price increases to still be the norm.
ReadWrite: Microsoft readies launch of its own mobile app store — Microsoft announced that they will be launching a new mobile games and app store to compete with Apple and Google Play.
Note: emphases mine
Source — ThreadReaderApp Twitter proxy: threadreaderapp.com/thread/1793779717813723521.html -
Former Square Enix exec on why Final Fantasy sales don’t meet expectations and chances of recouping insane AAA budgets
42 votes -
Comment on Special tag: "Active" in ~tildes
Tharrulous (edited )Link ParentWould it be possible to include these examples on the submissions page? It's not easy to determine which tags are necessary, and it seems these meta-tags are actually quite important. Take the...Would it be possible to include these examples on the submissions page? It's not easy to determine which tags are necessary, and it seems these meta-tags are actually quite important.
Take the
paywalltag for instance. Typically, I open a random front-page article to get ideas for tags when submitting. Since most articles aren't usually paywalls, adding this tag hadn't crossed my mind at all. -
Comment on <deleted topic> in ~tildes
Tharrulous (edited )Link ParentI'm also culpable in writing long comments. However, I've now realised this greatly affects navigation, especially in busier threads. When you've got 50 comments to read, it sucks to have comments...I'm also culpable in writing long comments. However, I've now realised this greatly affects navigation, especially in busier threads.
When you've got 50 comments to read, it sucks to have comments extending past the entire height of the computer screen. This is worse for mobile users.
It also makes it difficult for other users to engage with not only your comment, but every comment below yours. I've noticed that in many threads, engagement noticeably decreases after these long comments.
So what I've started doing is to:
-
Split long comments into subheadings
-
Put each subsection into collapsed spoilerboxes
(See this comment for example)
I would like to ask other people's opinions on this. Is this something you'd prefer?
Another thing
Incidentally, I've also played around with manually adding a 'Continued Below' spolierbox when the comment is too long.
See this comment
I removed it previously because I wasn't sure about it, but I've re-added it right now to demonstrate.
-
-
Comment on All aboard the bureaucracy train in ~transport
Tharrulous Link ParentThe interview provides valuable insight into the interplay between civil servants and bureaucrats, so it's definitely appreciated. However, the interview is a bit narrow in scope. If you're not...The interview provides valuable insight into the interplay between civil servants and bureaucrats, so it's definitely appreciated.
However, the interview is a bit narrow in scope. If you're not familiar with Alon's works and find it hard to keep up, I recommend this article: Why does it cost so much to build things in America? (Vox.com)
The Vox article, which also cites Alon Levy, provides a broad overview of the predicament. Since it's not in interview format, it provides a clearer and more articulate analysis. It delves deeper into issues alluded in this interview, such as lack of experience, scope creep, and institutional inertia.
The article also covers a wider range of issues, including legal and procedural delays, citizen lawsuits, and special interest groups that entangle transit projects in years of delays. As well as the stakes and potential outcomes.
Definitely highly recommend checking it out.
-
Comment on <deleted topic> in ~life
Tharrulous (edited )Link ParentThat sounds similar to what happened in Sydney, with its post-2014 Lockout Laws. After a series of deaths at King's Cross — once Australia's most prominent and famous nightlife district — the...That sounds similar to what happened in Sydney, with its post-2014 Lockout Laws.
After a series of deaths at King's Cross — once Australia's most prominent and famous nightlife district — the state government imposed heavy-handed legislation across the whole city centre and King's Cross, utterly destroying the city's nightlife.
All existing licensed venues — whether they were pubs, clubs, restaurants, beer gardens, live music or even karaoke bars — now had new curfews and onerous restrictions.
After midnight, there were heavy and arbitrary restrictions on alcohol: e.g. you can't drink scotch by itself; however, you can drink it with Coca Cola mixed in it, but you can't drink it if the Coca Cola was pre-mixed and put into a can...
Curfew (lockout) begun at 1:30am. New licensed venues weren't approved. Most ridiculously, the City of Sydney banned kebab sales after midnight... yeah.
Occasionally, police in riot gear with sniffer dogs will close off an entire street to inspect a venue. If drugs were found on a single person, everyone gets kicked out and the business gets a 72-hour operating ban. Three strikes and you're permanently closed. Yes, they did this with a 3000-person venue during the busiest weekend of the year (the venue failed). Yes, they also did this with pubs, restaurants and beer gardens.
Evidently, this wasn't sustainable. The conditions and economics to operate a nightlife business became very difficult. The result? Hundreds of licensed venues closed. The live music scene — decimated. Century-old venues — gone. As new venues were prohibited by the license freeze, the ones that closed weren't replaced. Many inter-dependent businesses that relied on traffic from these venues (e.g. convenience stores, McDonalds) have also shut down.
Funny Story
So, apparently Bruce Springsteen's manager once called a nightclub to organise a few post-event drinks for his band. The nightclub told them they were closing because of lockouts. The manager then asked where else they could go, and the nightclub embarrassingly had to tell them that they literally didn't know, as everything was closing or closed already.
My Thoughts
These types of responses are immensely disproportionate and counterproductive. Sure, you've stopped nightlife-related assaults and bad fights, but you've done so by killing off your nightlife. Similarly, you can also stop car crashes if you remove all cars from the road!
Continued Below (Click Here)
Sydney's Lockout Laws merely lasted 5 years, yet its legacy leaves a lasting mark on the city. King's Cross, the once-legendary heart of Sydney's famed nightlife, is now a shadow of its former past. Most pubs, clubs and bars are gone and the once-crowded streets are empty at night. It is now the haven of the gentrified, rich and boring, who live in apartments that tower the corpses of the old venues. (yeah... good luck reintroducing nightlife with these newcomers)
The better solution to dealing with nightlife-related violence is to ensure people make it home safe. This is what Sydney's southern neighbour, Melbourne, decided on. It relaxed liquor laws for smaller bars and venues, ensuring there was a more diverse mix of venues and patrons. It introduced 24-hour public transport on weekends, getting people off the streets after closing time, when it is most dangerous. It put police presence on every single one of its 200+ train stations after 6pm, ensuring human presence at lesser used stations after dark.
These are some examples how you can make nightlife safe. By actually making it safe. Not by getting rid of it.
-
Comment on How Google is killing independent sites like ours in ~tech
Tharrulous (edited )LinkI was meant to post this article earlier today, so I've already written a summary. I don't want it to go to waste, so I'll post it here. However, I highly recommend reading the article,...I was meant to post this article earlier today, so I've already written a summary.
I don't want it to go to waste, so I'll post it here.
However, I highly recommend reading the article, particularly for the images.
Summary
BuzzFeed, Rolling Stone, Forbes, Popular Science... what have they all got in common?
They all know the best air purifiers for pet hair and the best cooling sheets for hot sleepers; the best home saunas, best beard products, best gifts for teens, best cocktail kits. best. best. best.
But do they really know what's 'best'?
Search Engine Ranking
Sixteen or so 'Digital Goliaths' dominate the Google Search results. No matter what you google, the same publishers keep showing up at the top of the results page.
These big media publishers and their dubious 'best of’ product recommendation lists are ranked above independent sites that actually test the products they review. They recommend products without any firsthand testing, data, or evidence; often paraphrase Amazon listings; and sometimes even promote products from bankrupt or fraudulent companies.
For independent websites that put in time and effort to produce genuine reviews, this is a death knell. Their fates precariously hangs on the unpredictable whims of search algorithms, SEO, and ultimately, their placement on search engine results pages. Thus, any changes to those will impact their websites.
Product Reviews
Back in 2021, Google Search introduced the Products Review Update. After years of silence, they finally heard the pleas. Google will finally promote reviews that dedicated time, effort, and money into actually testing products, countering lazy publishers that haven't even seen the product. This sounds like a good thing, right?
Well... things didn't quite happen as expected.
This isn't to fault Google. Google's Product Review Update did really alter the search landscape; real review websites were rewarded, lazy publishers weren't. Naturally, these big media publishers weren't really happy at the loss of traffic; however, they had a trick up their sleeves.
Untrustworthy Product Recommendations
So, people don't generally start off with specific reviews of particular products. Instead, they need to determine which products are even relevant at solving the specific issue they need to solve. Whether that's a 'best of' list, Reddit thread, forum post, you'd need to start somewhere.
Unfortunately, savvy SEOs at big media publishers have discovered that they can create 'best of' product recommendations without dedicating time or effort in actually testing and reviewing the products they recommend.
"All they had to do was say what they needed to say to pass a manual check if it came to that."
By faking their experience with the product in bogus tests, quoting non-existent subject-matter experts, and exploiting the public’s trust in their brands, these publishers can trick Google and the public into believing their content is trustworthy and reliable.
They merely need to include the right things: E.g. "rigorous testing process", "our lab team", "[X Expert] we've collaborated with", "evaluated with [Y methodology]". Maybe even sprinkle some photos of post-it notes, tape measures, people holding clipboards.
Even when their content is manually reviewed by a Google human, how can one — as a non-subject expert — determine that these seemingly genuine recommendations aren't authentic?
The Web: Inundated
"Why trust us?
Popular Science started writing about technology 150 years ago... first issue in 1872... our mission to demystify the world of innovation for everyday readers... writers and editors [with] decades of experience... trustworthy voices... very best recommendations..."
-Popular Science, at the bottom of every article
Big media publishers have started to recognise the value of their brands. Trusted by people, privileged by Google. What better way to honour that value by pumping out 40 different pages of 'best of' recommendations for home cleaning products? Fully-tested by experts, mind you.
Huh, this Better Homes & Gardens article seems suspiciously similar to this Real Simple article. The photos seem to feature the same person with the same air purifier in the same room at the same time, just at different angles? Same photographer? Same 'expert'? What's going on?
Buzzfeed... is literally just the Amazon reviews copy and pasted. Reddit seems to have good discussion. However, the top comment links to another website... that is simply a word-for-word copy of the Real Simple article. Also, the Reddit account is banned, yet the comment somehow remains.
An aside: If this sounds like a nightmare, it honestly is. I've already given up on general web. But now? Even Reddit has been astroturfed to the abyss. Nowadays, I really don't know where to go for authentic product recommendations. /endrant
The Exploitation of Trust
"Private equity firms are utilizing public trust in long-standing publications to sell every product under the sun
In a bid to replace falling ad revenue, publishing houses are selling their publications for parts to media groups that are quick to establish affiliate marketing deals."
Two results below Buzzfeed, we've got Popular Science. Founded 1872, it was recently sold to North Equity LLC in 2020. In 2021, it switched to an all-digital format. In 2023, it stopped being a magazine altogether.
Gone are the days of its team of journalists and editors. Gone are the days of its lists of authentically tested products. Gone are the days of its truthfulness and trustworthiness. Every single Digital Goliath are pumping up their bottom line with affiliate earnings in lieu of their publications' reputations.
"The strategy of [these big media giants] for their publications seems to be to optimize resources and maximize profit.
However, most readers don't know this. Not only do they slap on a deceptive "Why Trust Us" text box on every product recommendation page, their page recommending Molekule air purifiers was created a month after the company had gone bankrupt. Hugely ironic.
Shouldn't Google Step In?
"We might one day see the first page of Google results full of copycat recommendations once they roll out their hacks across all their websites, including Verywell, People.com, Health.com, Travel + Leisure, Byrdie, MyDomaine, The Spruce, Lifewire, Southern Living, TreeHugger, Parents.com… and so many other top tier publications.
Oh, wait, that’s already happening"
Technically, these 'best of' lists are classified by Google as 'reviews', and should provide "insightful analysis, original research" instead of “thin content that simply summarizes a bunch of products, services, or other things”.
In reality, Google has a clear bias towards big media publishers. Sometimes, these sites outrank even brands themselves on their own branded keyword.
Independent Sites are being Killed through Inaction
"This situation just isn’t sustainable. Many independent sites will go out of business if this trend continues."
These Digital Goliaths are not only taking traffic away from newer independent sites like HouseFresh, but also from established websites such as GearLab. Despite producing product reviews based on unbiased, independent testing, these sites have witnessed a significant drop in their traffic in the past few months.
The result? A barren web full of investment firms and ‘innovative digital media companies’ that sell you bad products.
The Future
Recently, Sports Illustrated was outed in using fake AI writers for product reviews. The publisher blamed an outside company, AdVon Commerce.
This is illustrative of the future spearheaded by these Digital Goliaths / investment firms. Buy beloved magazines, shut down their print editions, turn them digital-only, fire the actual journalists who earned our trust, and outsource the affiliate part of their sites to external firms.
Everybody loses but the investment firm.
"Google won’t be the gatekeeper forever, but they are the gatekeeper now.
The ball is in their court."
-
Comment on A startup allegedly ‘Hacked the World.’ Then came the censorship—and now the backlash in ~tech
Tharrulous (edited )Link ParentThey have their South Asia bureau there. So they have assets, offices, employees and interests in India that would be jeopardised. The Politico article actually delves into significant detail:...They have their South Asia bureau there. So they have assets, offices, employees and interests in India that would be jeopardised.
The Politico article actually delves into significant detail:
The act of blocking foreign reporting was once simple: Impound some magazines at the airport and call it a day. (...) The confiscation wouldn’t hamper readers beyond the national border.
Now, though, publishing is global. (...) Instead of banning disfavored pieces of newsprint in one particular country, judges are apt to demand that things be removed from global websites. A vast organization like Reuters, with major interests in India that could be sanctioned, not to mention local employees who could get in legal trouble, doesn’t have the luxury of blowing off the judge.
“If you are the Iowa Daily Beagle, and you publish a story that upsets some company in India, that company can go to an Indian court and get whatever injunction they want,” (...) “But if the Iowa Daily Beagle has no assets in India and does no business in India, they can’t do much. It becomes more of an issue for international publishers, like Reuters. They certainly have resources there, and they are subject to the jurisdiction of the Indian court.”
Of course (...) publishers have the ability to geofence content, making it so that an American reader can access a certain page while an Indian reader cannot. But that can backfire. Particularly in a country with historic reasons to be prickly about Western condescension, a judge is likely to take it as a sign of disrespect if an order is ignored beyond the border — not a good move if you are facing trial.
(emphasis mine)
It's really unfortunate that nowadays, since news is digital and global, legal constraints are able to transcend borders.
In the past, it didn't matter if you had global interests, newspaper printing / distribution was inherently a local affair. And once the countless copies were distributed, the works had permanence — no jurisdiction could alter or censor the printed words, or physically remove your access to the article. Everyone, from individuals to libraries and archives would all have copies.
Nowadays, as we've seen in this controversy, the canonical article can be deleted; the Internet Archive backup taken down; works, discussions, analyses, podcasts based off the article removed. It became well-nigh impossible to actually read this article.
And your distribution infrastructure: from the Google links DMCA'd; to your document clouds deleted; to your CDN, domain registry, and domain registrar threatened; etc. It's not just your article, but your whole distribution pipeline that are all vulnerable to such threats. Any infrastructure you rely on that has an India presence will also face this compulsion.
(See Also: Twitter deleting accounts and Tweets of critics worldwide due to single jurisdiction takedown orders — Local employees were threatened if global removal wasn't enacted)
In our interconnected digital era, the clash between journalistic freedom and legal constraints unconfined by geography have become a complex and delicate affair. I really don't know how we can resolve this tension. In the past, due to impracticality, foreign jurisdictions couldn't impact your local press and speech rights. But nowadays, there are increasing precedents that jurisdictions are using to silence speech across the globe.
Summary:
Denmark is preparing to end centuries of state-run letter deliveries as PostNord shifts its focus to parcels, driven by a steep fall in mail volumes. Once handling more than a billion letters a year, the service now processes fewer than 110 million, with most communication replaced by digital alternatives. The move will see thousands of postal jobs cut, while red letterboxes vanish from streets across the country.
The changes reflect a broader European trend, as postal services scale back amid sharp declines in mail and rising costs. For Denmark, a leader in digital government, the transition marks a symbolic end of an era.