Yeah, that’s what I’ve gathered from this thread. In fact, someone on the thread pointed out that Netflix Originals pay for the cost of production + 30% and that’s it. So not even paying Netflix do you pay the creators of the content. Insane.
Oh wow. Looked it up and it’s every bit as bleak as you mentioned. Thanks for letting me know
I remember reading that commute time is the number one predictor for leaving a job. I wonder what the evidence would show if I properly looked it up.
A lot of comments here assume the research is to scam people. But if we want to understand Adobe’s research, I think it’s important to keep some things in mind.
If you’re an expert in the field of computer graphics, you probably find it thrilling to be surrounded by like-minded people, surrounded by people as skilled as you or even more skilled. This is something that Adobe understands. That is why Adobe invests in hiring bright minds to do research.
Is Adobe going to use this research to create extractive products? You bet! But the research itself is open to anyone.
This is similar to how Bell Labs is a corporation and yet it gave us innovations like transistors, Unix, and languages like C and S.
In general, if you’re at the bleeding edge of your field, it’s harder to find places and communities that are enabling and motivating for your work. That is why scientists like Galileo or Kepler would work for rich patrons: the patrons would give them access to money and connections that enabled the scientific work. This is not to say that this arrangement is perfect, but it reflects the historically-grounded decisions that people often choose to take.
Whether we like it or not, today’s rich patrons are corporations (and nation states). And those are the places that today’s bright minds often choose to go to so that these bright minds stay in the bleeding edge.
Of course, I don’t want to minimize the fact that Adobe is scummy and scammy. I just want to distinguish between patrons/capitalists and bright minds. They are motivated by different things. Basically, one wants profits and the other wants to advance their field.
I think the challenge ahead of us is how to minimize things like scummy corporate behavior and how to maximize bleeding edge research. Here are some potential solutions that I like: open source and libre software, open-access scientific journals, the entrepreneurial state, and mission economies.
Dropout uses Vimeo?
Ah. Thanks for the target audience explanation.
What I mean with Mastodon is that, immediately after “Social networking that’s not for sale”, you see more sentences: “Your home feed should be filled with what matters to you most, not what a corporation thinks you should see. Radically different social media, back in the hands of the people.”
I think the technical details, such as open source and federation are not going to click with people who don’t know those ideas. However, open source and federation can create something that, for those people, is valuable.
So the question is: what does Lemmy offer that clicks with people who don’t know technical details?
This is up for discussion, of course. But I’d argue there’s “freedom”, “choice”, “human (and not corporate) communities”, “made for people, not for profits”…
That leads me to my suggestion:
A discussion platform that is truly free. You choose your feed, not a corporation. You choose where to set up your account, not a corporation. You choose what communities to be a part of, not a corporation.
or
A discussion platform that is truly free. You choose your feed. You choose where to set up your account. You choose what communities to be a part of. You choose, not a corporation
The bolded text is like Mastodon’s first sentence. The rest of the text is like Mastodon’s other sentences.
The technical details can be explained later in the page, just like Mastodon does it.
This totally happens in code where functions have plenty of side effects. And thats why functional programming can lead to fearless refactoring!
I’d love to edit my previous post but I don’t wanna spam you.
As to target audiences, I think it could be helpful to specify the personas that we’re building the sentences for. Does the persona know what the Fediverse is? Do they know what enshittification is? Do they know what open source is? Do they have strong opinions about surveillance capitalism (even if they don’t know the word for it)? Or are they clueless regarding all of these topics?
My suggestion assumes some knowledge of these topics. To be clear, if I’d single out a suggestion of mine, it’d be:
A discussion platform that can’t enshittify. You choose your feed. You choose where to host your account.
The best sentence will depend on the target audience. Is there a way to know who would be that audience?
Also, responding more directly to your question, I’ve got a frame challenge: What about two or three short sentences, like what Mastodon does?
A platform that is truly democratic. You choose your feed. You choose where to host your account.
A platform where you’re truly free. You choose your feed. You choose where to host your account.
A platform that can’t enshittify. You choose your feed. You choose where to host your account.
That third one I like, because it’s a differentiator that Lemmy has in comparison with ButterflyX or whatever Jack the Twitter Guy is working on right now; Lemmy is not at risk of enshitifying, unlike ButterflyX.
Also, if it’s important to differentiate Lemmy from Mastodon or other Fediverse platforms, the sentences could start with “A discussion platform”.
Also, here’s a take where I tried to make no reference to electronics:
A bustling room filled with tables, each filled with people talking about what they find interesting, where the conversation topics are always chosen by the table and always changing, and where you’re free to set up your own tables with your own topics.
or, more succinctly,
A bustling room filled with tables, where each table is filled with people talking about what they find interesting, a room where you’re free to set up your own tables with your own topics.
Also, I just realized that every time that I edit this post you get notified becase I @ed you. Sorry!
And, finally, happy cake day, @nutomic@lemmy.ml!
That’s alright. I understand that explaining takes time and energy. That time and energy is something I often choose to spend, but I also sometimes choose not to. I would ask you why you want to stop explaining things, but that would, ironically, require you to explain things. I’m not saying this ironically or sarcastically: I hope you can be understood easily!
To understand what you mean, could you rephrase or explain your ideas? I read your post and couldn’t understand what you meant.
Where to start? I’m not sure which option is the most user-friendly, but I have really liked using Typst. I’ve come to use it for all kinds of things, from reports at work to my CV as well as my ongoing TTRPG campaign.
To git gud with Typst, I started by reading the tutorial. While reading, I was thinking visibly (look up Project Zero and Visible Thinking Routines) about it. It took a couple of days of reading and thinking visibly and practicing for me to feel that I could use Typst quickly.
Are the documents as pretty as Word? I’d say so. I redid my CV with Typst and I think it’s the prettiest CV I’ve ever made. Additionally, my TTRPG dungeon keys are prettier than when I used Libre Office (in part because it’s easier to format stuff, so I format more than before).
Are there options for fonts and styles? Absolutely! Fonts are very easy to change. As to styles, it requires a bit of learning, but now I apply styles with functions. I use #set, #show, and custom functions to apply styles. For example, boxed text can be considered a style, and I made a custom function called boxed_text() that I just pass my text to. It takes a bit of setup, but for me it’s ridiculously easy to just pass my text to boxed_text() instead of clicking on stuff to apply styles. If you’re curious about my boxed_text() function, you can check it out here https://lemmy.ml/post/37628567/21680638
Edit: fixed the link
Totally! I really like that the article explains that Trump doesn’t lie, but he bullshits. Apparently the reason is that lying means the liar knows what’s true, while a bullshitter doesn’t care if the bullshit is true or false. This is one of the reasons Trump is unique.
Oooooh. Those boxes would be useful. Thanks for taking the time to document them!
Huh. Interesting. It seems like you’re fully digital, then. Maybe I should try that sometime!
It sounds like you’ve got a comprehensive solution!
Do you prepare scenarios by exporting to PDFs? I ask because I tried using regular Markdown for my sessions but it didn’t work. I couldn’t get nice boxed text nor could I define when I wanted a page break. None of the Markdown solutions seemed as elegant as Quarto (which I know from learning to use R) and Typst (which seems a little simpler than Quarto). Maybe there are solutions that I missed.
I ask that, but that doesn’t mean that Markdown isn’t a great solution to many problems! In fact, my daily note-taking is done in Markdown!
In case you’re curious, here are my Typst settings. I write them at the top of every new scenario I build.
#set text(font: "Atkinson Hyperlegible Next")
#let title = [The Name of This New Scenario lol]
#set page(
header: align(right + horizon, title)
)
#set pagebreak(weak: true)
#let box_text(content) = block(
stroke: 1pt + black,
inset: 10pt,
radius: 4pt,
width: 100%,
content
)
#show "GM Note": phrase => strong(phrase)
Ah. Thanks for the recommendation. I looked it up and the noun definition was “a substance obtained by a chemical process or producing a chemical effect”. So things like sucrose in a banana, protein in eggs, and even fiber in vegetables are all chemical.
I understand that you’re trying to make the point that Nutella is not healthy, and I genuinely think you can make an effective argument for that (in fact, I agree with you!). In particular, I think you can argue with evidence-based arguments. However, do you think accusing Nutella of being made of chemicals (when practically everything in this universe —including healthy food— is made of chemicals) is the best way of making an evidence-based argument?
Amazing!