There is no freedom. Everyone lives on earth. Despite all the billionaires building bunkers might think otherwise. Microplastic pollution and global warming will kill everyone.
I think of him as a 20 year old one hit wonder who got lucky by making a popular website and meeting Sheryl Sandberg. Meta's strategy since then has been to buy their competitors or just rip off their core features. When was the last thing Facebook did anything new or interesting? Marky Mark and the Zucky Bunch have been coasting for over 10 years at least
> When was the last thing Facebook did anything new or interesting?
I guess pytorch is kind of cool and useful, and actually came from Facebook and not a company they bought (like React coming from Instagram). Although I guess you could make the case that Facebook didn't really "invent" pytorch as it is/was a port of Torch.
Funny enough no one believes in human society to invest in measures that actually work. Why not spend more on the fixing climate change than hole up in a hole hoping the sea levels will go down?
Why not reduce plastic contamination than hoping to outlive all the accumulated micro plastics in your organs?
It seems the people with the wealth and power are focused on hoarding it rather than sharing it. I would say that they can’t see the big picture. But the reality is the “big picture” for them is one of cynicism and ruthlessness and they create the world they fear through a self-fulfilling prophecy.
The core selfishness of not wanting to get involved in fixing the problem because it might mean compromising your social status in the short and medium term has been a thing since we've known about the environmental risks.
It depends just how miserable it makes you, and the rest of the family's views. I wouldn't want my parent/spouse to be absolutely miserable just so I can have nicer things. Also a parent who is absolutely ground-down by their work might have psychological problems as a result which could negatively affect the child, or at minimum less time/energy to directly give to the family.
Most everyone only ever talks about parts 1-2, probably because that’s the beetle stuff. Everyone in his household is miserable and depressed and he is killing himself working hard to try to carry that burden for his family, just barely holding everything together, to the point it breaks him and he transforms.
Part 3 is his slow death and then a quick denouement takes place after dies, and it’s about how happy and healthy everyone else is after he’s stopped making himself ill trying to give them something they clearly are happier without.
The subtle thing is that the family becomes the main character in the second half of part 2 into part 3, once they start getting agency.
> it’s about how happy and healthy everyone else is after he’s stopped making himself ill trying to give them something they clearly are happier without.
You can even say that in the end everyone feels relief, like they got rid of a burden.
Most people, past or present, have had to do whatever labor they can to (hopefully) simply survive at the contextual standard of living. Some kids may love a parent who lets them go hungry so they can do work they don't dislike as much -- but the other adults around them probably won't have such a generous view, and I think rightly so.
It's also entirely possible, maybe even likely, for people to get burnt out doing something they love because we don't set the natural boundaries we would with something we're strictly doing pragmatically.
I still think it's the best way to live, but the saying "do what you love and you'll never work a day in your life" really is double edged.
How is this good in any way for the creative workers? Do you think there's a sustainable source of innovative and interesting experiences being generated if no people wrote anymore?
It's good for everybody. We have to work less to survive. Everyone is more productive at whatever they do. The value is in the ideas not the medium. You might write a book and I'll take it and use AI to turn it into audio, or a tv series, or a movie, or a video game.
The bottleneck is no longer on labor to turn ideas into reality, the bottleneck is imagination itself. It's incredible. The cost to produce/consume going down along with many other facets of the economy translates into deflation.
If you make less money, or work less hours, or only have a single person in your family work - that's ok because money will go further. That's the whole idea behind Star Trek, the first step though was intelligent computers, automation and robots. Harnessed in a way that doesn't backfire on us.
We are all supposed to have less work with all the innovation and automation but look at us now with all the households where two adults are required to have jobs.
We produce/consume a lot of things like media and other goods/services that we don't really need. When productivity is channeled into low value things, we all end up having to work more.
The vision is nice. I don't see it playing out practically.
It's the human competition. Every human in the world is competing - on some level - with every other human.
Your described widespread "benefits" to society just change the playing field all humans are competing on. The money will go from that to something else - to pick something topical say, housing.
Competition and the value of a dollar are not related. If a dollar can go far then that's great. You can compete in business, or sports, or video games whatever. That's great.
> Competition and the value of a dollar are not related.
Precisely. Being able to more easily produce and consume just means more production and consumption. The "rat race" competition will continue. No one will work less.
Ideas are worthless. There are billions of ideas born and dying every day. It is the execution that gives idea value, it is quality of the execution that determines amount of value
You're correct but all that is true on average. There will be specific people - maybe a large number of them - for whom this is extremely painful. We can celebrate the former but let's not sweep the latter under the rug.
> the bottleneck is imagination itself. It's incredible.
You don't understand what that means. That means your soul's worth is measured with more precision and accuracy. That conjoined to free market economy implicates that individuals and groups of people producing less can be more openly considered to be objectively less human.
I don't personally care, but that's not... It seem to me that vast majority of people around here already don't exactly like what the Internet had always rewarded, nor how fast it's evolving, nor where it's headed. I think that accelerating that only accelerates that, and I suspect it might not exactly be what you would reflect on positively later.
“Asmon behaves like a maverick ‘independent’, but in reality has to ask his boss for permission before he can do anything. He is not his own man,”
To add some context, the message screenshots being shared mentions Asmon wanting to talk to his editors. Musk mistakenly believes editors are the "boss" e.g. at a newspaper. For content creators, editors are more akin to assistants who help with clipping and uploading.
