I encourage you to keep going. Regular TV seems lame to me. A curated selection of YouTube videos is just the ticket. I often find myself browsing it instead of trying to watch some official streaming service.
That means a lot, thanks! That’s exactly what I hoped for: making YouTube feel less like an endless scroll and more like flipping open a good magazine or playlist.
I’ll keep adding new rabbit holes every day and always open to suggestions for themes you’d love to see!
It is. I want American auto manufacturing to continue to be a thing. With this administration most industries will see 4 years of technological and competitive regression though so it’s probably a losing battle.
BYD wiping out the Big 3 would also wipe out a significant amount of manufacturing that is "auto industry adjacent". How much more industry do you want to see wiped out in the US? We already can't produce paper masks or toilet paper, for example ...
I want the Big 3 to die horrible flaming death, but they need to get replaced by something else domestic. Letting anybody (let alone BYD) simply wipe out all our domestic manufacturing capacity is mega-bad.
I want to start by saying: I'm in general agreement with what you say here.
Now, the But: But, it's very important to acknowledge who's responsible for the decline in US manufacturing. BYD isn't "wiping out", the US auto industry. China didn't sneak into the US and steal the factories, the government didn't edict that things be made in China, and tree-hugging hippy libtards didn't give everything away to commonism.
US auto industry ownership unilaterally sent US auto manufacturing to China!
And has thus reaped many many billions in increased profits, over decades, as a result of throwing American workers, American consumers, and the US's strategic competitiveness under the bus, for the purpose of their own personal profit.
Now, somehow, it's China's fault! for being the world's preeminent manufacturing center. And now somehow, US taxpayers (that's us, the idiot herd, not ownership) need to make big payments to Make Manufacturing Great Again.
This is just another example of the typical policy of socialist welfare for ownership, and neoliberal austerity for the idiot herd.
This is like how the taxpayers pay to build a nuclear power plant, then a private utility operates it for decades while money pours out of it, then, when it's time to clean up the super-fund site scale of radioactive pollution, that's again the responsibility of socialism.
Why should US auto industry innovate?
China's already making most of what we consume here, and they're making world leading innovation in the EV market. So why aren't we just importing the EVs from there like we import everything else?
It's not like this is all some big surprise. The problems with continuing to burn petro, the massive simplification of vehicular mechanisms and the improvements in lifespan and reliability resulting from electrification have all been known for decades. Where's all this capitalist competition driving technical innovation?
The answer of course, is nowhere. There is no such thing in modern US big industry capitalism. It's a big f_cking lie!
The only thing modern US capitalism is focused on innovating is how to f_ck the consumer, the worker, and the vendor, a little more completely, in favor of shareholders. I'm sure we all needed more financialization of everything.
I'm not an absolutist. I think capitalism is basically the only system that's ever been in place in human civilization, and the most straightforward way to prosperity is via that system. But (again with the But) it needs to operate more in line with what is preached: competitive markets leading to innovation that benefits everyone, not just shareholders.
Another large portion of the blame lies on the uneducated, irrational US consumer population. Denial of the realities of the consequences of continuing to burn petro, denial of the benefits of electrification across the board. While people talk about their need for "pride" and "faith". This sounds like a bunch of emo bullsh1t to me. Where's the objective, rational analysis? It's no wonder the US consumer gets shafted by industry, it's pretty much begged for.
So, while you're general assertions are true. The widely ignored realities of how we got into this mess, and who should be making changes to get us out of this mess, are almost never mentioned out load.
> Another large portion of the blame lies on the uneducated, irrational US consumer population.
Oh, it's much, much worse than this. And don't blame "uneducated" or "irrational". These people know exactly what they are doing: trashing anybody who has the temerity to do even slightly better than them. "I'm miserable, so you should be, too" is the rule of the day to them.
So many people cheer any and every anti-union effort in spite of the fact that the unions were the only thing holding the tide at bay. Gee, maybe the fact that the powers that be hate unions so bad should give you some hint as to what is effective at opposing them?
It's only with AI finally threatening programming jobs that tech folks seem to be finding religion and discovering that everybody will cheer at their demise, too.
Um, welcome to the reality of the steelworker and autoworker from the 1980s, folks. Sorry you had to join us.
Now, can those of us who have been fighting this battle for four decades finally get some help?
I see what you're talking about, however, still find much to disagree with in that comment.
> US auto industry ownership unilaterally sent US auto manufacturing to China!
While the US auto industry did move manufacturing out of the US, this statement is factually incorrect in multiple ways. First, the auto manufacturers largely moved their operations to Mexico and Canada, not China. And second, this happened after https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_American_Free_Trade_Agre... an international trade agreement negotiated at the federal government level which made doing so possible and profitable. Doubtless industry lobbyists were involved, however the action was not unilateral in any sense.
Similarly, federal and international policy is capable of making it economically sensible to bring that manufacturing back onto US shores.
> China's already making most of what we consume here, and they're making world leading innovation in the EV market. So why aren't we just importing the EVs from there like we import everything else?
You rail against regulatory protectionism for US heavy industry but seem unaware that all nations with heavy industry engage in same. China imposes tariffs on importing US autos, as does most of Europe, Japan, S. Korea, and anywhere else seeking to maintain some form of local heavy manufacturing, which is seen as a national asset, particularly during war time and other emergencies like pandemics.
> The answer of course, is nowhere. There is no such thing in modern US big industry capitalism. It's a big f_cking lie!
Last I checked, 75% of Teslas components are US made.
> The only thing modern US capitalism is focused on innovating is how to f_ck the consumer, the worker, and the vendor, a little more completely, in favor of shareholders. I'm sure we all needed more financialization of everything.
This can be fairly directly traced to the Harvard Business School in the '80s. I think there's a legitimate axe to grind with them and vulture capitalists they trained. But it seems you're ready to throw the baby out with the bathwater over it. The US needs manufacturing to continue to prosper. Some amount of protectionism toward manufacturing is practiced worldwide, even by China, and can be acceptable here too. And while it seems you're very worried about addressing climate change, and I am too, I think we can work toward that as a nation without abdicating our agency.
Electric cars will carry a thousand pounds of battery to get that much range, while a typical gas car will only be equipped to carry a hundred pounds of fuel, using less than a third as much space. It's not even 5% of the car's weight.
Yeah, I find it pretty silly, too. There used to be extended range fuel tank options on some vehicles, but they've largely gone away. I believe some tests are done with x% of fuel on board, so of course a larger tank will mean a greater curb weight, lower fuel economy, etc. Ultimately I think it's more about an unintended side effect of regulation than it is about true market forces.
On the other hand, we have to assume the average fuel tank load is <50%, so a larger tank truly DOES end up resulting in a heavier vehicle and lower fuel economy on average. We'd all get better mileage if we ran tiny fuel tanks and fueled our cars every day.
Solid state batteries will enable astonishing hypercars (think 10,000 hp for less than a porsche) but will also make small and cheap lightweight EVs feasible (ie 1000kg) due to mass de-compounding effect.
My understanding is that there's a much shorter, simpler form of "basic training" for folks like this. The military bands, for instance, use it. I think the idea is that they can say that they "went through basic just like everyone else." But there might only be one early morning hike.
The usual lossless image compression algorithms is the given. I am talking about compressing it further since the telescope observes the same (or largely overlapping) patches of the sky and the most significant signal is stars, which are more or less "constant". At the very least, they probably could use the lossless "animation" compression algorithms like APNG or FLIF for consequent images of the same sky patch.
Yes, separate metadata has great advantages, but it can get separated from the main file pretty easily. Many social media platforms and email sites will let you embed PNG files. But they won't let you embed an image with a separate metadata file that's always kept along with it.
When images get loose in the wild, this can be very helpful.
I know people like the Ripley novels, but I find them really creepy and predictable. This kind of wish-fulfillment fiction is kind of lazy. It's like the sci-fi where the author just invents a gadget that delivers what people fantasize about doing.
Do you think the novels are there to fulfill creepy "wishes"?
In my opinion, this is not the case, but to each their own.
What I find lazy is when stories try to make me guess about "what" happens in the story, flex about technological details, or use surprise as a narrative device.
Highsmith's stories are about "how" and "why" something happens, they are not movie stories trying to lead you astray and make you guess what will happen.
I prefer this, always, in movies, books, writing, art.
I like open questions. I hate plots that try to build surprises or riddles to keep me interested. These kinds of stories make me tune out and feel dull to me.
I really love her other novels too, many of them also have the perspective of a crime perpetrator though.
For a slightly different variant, maybe look at, for example, "Edith's diary".
Also, her short stories are amazing, for example "When the Fleet Was in", or many other ones published in collections along with it.
These stories are far from painting criminals as desirable, in my opinion. Sure, it's a part of the entertainment value to take the criminal's perspective.
Her novels challenge simplistic morality, but she does not "side with the criminals" IMO.
I get what you mean with her novels having in common a certain atmosphere of psychological determinism, and, a focus on dark motives that are somehow presented to the readers as "relatable".
I suggest to read some interviews with her: she did not have a nihilistic view on hunamity. She believed in good and evil. Certainly she was a difficult person.
This one has some content about these questions, it unfortunately also focuses strongly on the Ripley case, and you might feel it affirms your view in some sense (I'd disagree though):
(please ignore the PL-related stuff... should not distract from the content)
> Q: Your heroes are usually unscrupulous, amoral and sometimes schizoid. Is it simply that they are more dramatically interesting figures to write about, or does your attention to them run deeper than that?
> A: It’s not so much attraction. I find them interesting, puzzling. Nobody questions why somebody is good, but most people are curious about a murderer – they want to know why. Also there is entertainment value in somebody getting away with something. One may disapprove, but it’s still fascinating.
I couldn't retrieve the most interesting interview I read with her, didn't bookmark that, unfortunately.
I don't think her novels simply exploit people fantasizing about be murderers. That kind of "crime-porn" is much more prevalent in simplistic crime novels about killers who are caught in the end, but get to commit atrocities described in details before.
The "wish-fulfillment" you describe, in my opinion, I would call something else. I did not enjoy Highsmith because I wanted to murder people.
But sure, nobody has to like her, and there are plenty of other writing styles to enjoy.
She certainly has a style and complex of themes that leaves one with an urge to read something different after a couple of books.
>What I find lazy is when stories try to make me guess about "what" happens in the story, flex about technological details, or use surprise as a narrative device.
This is interesting to hear. I might not be interpreting your comments correctly but some of my favorite 'fiction' seems to contain all of this laziness. Significant technical detail that resists attempts at mental dismantling, a purposely ambiguous ending and a type of unreliable narrator.
I didn't find the perfect phrasing for what I meant:
> Significant technical detail that resists attempts at mental dismantling
The last part makes it interesting to me again! For example, I love "ice nine" and "dragon's egg" (more "hard" sci-fi), and I adore the sci-fi/fantasy story SCP-1425.
I also have a passion for PKD (to steer away from technology a little).
What I mean is boring descriptions of fictional technological details, not the effects of technology.
And, in general (unrelated second point), I do not like "McGuffins" and "action".
> a purposely ambiguous ending and a type of unreliable narrator
I love that! Have I mentioned Philip K Dick yet? Regardless, he's pretty much on the other end of the scale of what I meant: techno-centric vs more "philosophical" sci-fi.
I don't care about detailed descriptions of space-station machinery or interstellar travel–unless of course, it's written in a way that helps me imagine being in that world, and how it would feel like.
I'm sure Harvard doesn't consider its use as commercial, even though some people there get big salaries. Claudine Gay, for instance, makes more than $1m/year even after losing the job of President in the scandal. There are only a few "commercial" businesses that pay that well.
reply