Out of all the tech companies, Netflix was the one company I really wanted to work for one day. Over the years I've applied for dozen roles and never once did I ever hear anything back from them.
It just seemed like a magical place from the founders hindsight on streaming, the technology scale for which they operate at, and the connection to making movies and tv shows. Kinda like a fairy tale dream stack for me.
I would love to know where you got this analysis from. Hopefully not from polling or CNN. I think we all learned a lesson from using those data points.
The best indicator for this is the futures market. It never lies.
The futures market (or at least the ones I was watching) predicted that Donald Trump would lose both of the presidential elections he ran in (especially the first).
That should serve as a simple existence proof that the futures market CAN and does sometimes "lie".
The U.S. will always dominate because they consume everything and make really nothing. The second people in U.S. stop consuming everyone else pays the price.
The U.S. is 4% of the world population. Back when the world population was 2B people and the developed world population was about 400M and the U.S. was 130M of that and the only market whose capital stock hadn't been totally destroyed by WW2, we were crucial to the world economy. But now the world population is 8B, the developed world population is 6B, and the U.S. is 330M of that. In terms of raw size of consumer markets, the world can ignore the U.S. The tricky part is the dependence on U.S. software and financial companies for significant parts of the global information infrastructure, but there's already a strong movement to that.
So then given your use of "martyr" and your focus on money, your good with poor uneducated people sacrificing themselves and others for a self-serving cause?
I'm in full agreement. So many cases of this, and many other others such as falling out with management and peers, new more lucrative offer, and so fourth. Its obvious that these people who come forward are not going to suffer for their new found moral compass.
Or just very dubious timings. Like the other guy from Anthropic that was all over the international news. No followers, no post history but a single post blows up "naturally".
Highly suspect trends that can only make one believe it's marketing.
I think it does when you don't see the same level of rage when its exactly the same thing. Its called polorization. If you accepted it the first time you've all ready approved it universally.
I think if you are a partisan you're always going to find differences in the two scenarios which are meaningful enough to explain to yourself and others why your outrage (or lack of it) is warranted.
And here's the thing, I'm sure there are meaningful differences. But then again there's also loads of similarities. A similar thing on the geopolitical stage is the status of Kosovo. The moment it was accepted as a separate entity you opened a floodgate. President of Croatia had a very nice clip about it a while ago, basically accepting both things to be true at once: Kosovo is a state that we need to accept but we also need to admit it was illegally taken from Serbia. This sort of duality (what Nader called being able to walk and chew gum at the same time, although for a completely different situation, I forget what the topic was) is very rare.
On HN i made the mistake of defending, for lack of a better word, a certain tech oligarch who shall not be named where I eventually made a similar point to yours and got downvoted to oblivion.
I could understand the framing being: all censorship is bad (even though I suppose this view would be called childish by some). I could also understand the framing that there is too much concentration of power in the hands of these corporations (and then the inevitable cries to break them up or nationalize them). But, for example, just pointing out that nobody was against these same practices when they were aimed at the other end of the political spectrum (SF billionaires were the darlings of the Democrat and not Republican establishment) causes such outrage from what I would guess are generally well meaning and intelligent people, that it boggles the mind.
It really seems to be something in our species that turns us into crusaders for certain topics. I can very well imagine that this same biological(?) impulses, where you are incredibly convinced in your own morality, must have led to the spread of early christianity (and then to the same or even larger degree, Islam). And it has to come from a place of conviction because otherwise u cant explain the zeal. And anybody who isn't as convinced (maybe partially agreeing) gets dealt with viciously. I'm making Tom Hollands point (in a very erratic manner), that what we consider modern universalism (aka wokeness) is a natural continuation of christianity. I would just go further and say that I think there is something in us all (to varying degrees) that we want to spread a certain gospel of what it is to be a moral person. And if someone disagrees they are not moral.
Threatening nato, tariffs and literal trade embargo on Canada is absolutely disruptive to the literal supply chain. The whole world is rapidly redesigning the supply chain to remove the US as a node to the greatest extent possible. America will be poorer with less selection of goods and less access to foreign markets because of this.
America makes nothing anymore and consumes everything. The only thing disruptive is America redesigning the supply chain for onshoring. They can barely make a pair of shoes or even make make underwear. America is poorer because of dems and their close relationships with chinese. They'd sell their own mothers to make a buck.
Canada specifically is unbalenced trade partner. "The U.S. runs a trade deficit with Canada—totaling approximately $27.3 billion to $48.3 billion annually"*
The same way the dems block BYD from the U.S. market. That alone would finally bring the masses to electric vehicles. I'd be first in line for two them.
You seem like you've never heard the arguments against your position. To say America doesn't make anything is patently false. We have one of the most sophisticated manufacturing sectors in the world. Its just focused on complex machines that make other machines, aircraft, and medical devices.
To blame democrats is wildly untrue. Nixon normalized relations with China, Regan let broad liberalization and deregulation and union busting specifically targeting manufacturing, democrats were resisting all the way but kept losing elections until Clinton adopted many of these policies. And I do think it's clear that letting China into the wto without demanding more reforms was a mistake.
But obama was actively strengthening the solar, ev, and rare earth mining sectors (with republicans screaming that he was interfering with the free market by picking winners and losers, now we have a president taking equity stakes in intel and a percentage of sales of nvidia chips while running personal businesses out of the whitehouse and china has totally captured the solar and electric manufacturing sectors that we could have and should have won) and strengthening intellectual property protections against China with the transpacific partnership that Trump destroyed. That agreement would have done more to silo China and stop the IP theft than anything else.
Your understanding of trade is wrong. Canada is not an unbalanced trading partner, the flow of goods back and forth result in finished products like cars and tractors that are sold around the world for a profit so even if I were to concede that we spend more money in their market than they do in ours, which I am not, that activity facilities broad profitable economic activity. If we import $100m of lumber to build homes and they import $0 that doesn't mean trade is imbalanced. It means we bought a product and used it to build $800 million worth of homes for a $300m profit. Further youd have to look at the cost of alternative sources of lumber if it cost $200 million for domestic lumber then we saved $100 million that could be used to fund other economic activity.
Your argument regarding BYD is contradictory. You can either have trade barriers to preserve manufacturing or free trade that allows global competition at risk of putting your domestic manufacturing out of business you cant have both. That's why our TVs are Samsung and LG and TCL instead of zineth and RCA. Most countries try to preserve at least some automotive manufacturing because it's essential in war to have that specific manufacturing capacity.
I grew up in NC and saw textiles and furniture manufacturing leave hollowing out entire cities. Your analysis is wrong and the facts and causes don't match your position
reply