The article is fiction. The company launched less than a year ago. The founder claims that the company has had more than 100 clients, in less than a year? Pure marketing fiction — I doubt more than 10% of this article is true.
An optimistic outlook is that we have the knowledge and resources to adapt to a changing environment without loss of life. A realistic counter to that is if we were able to utilise these resources and knowledge effectively then we wouldn’t have found ourselves in this situation. An outlook that splits the difference is… we’ve made mistakes but maybe crisis is what’s required to get everyone working together using our resources and knowledge for the greater good.
A sad outlook is that we are all rich people living charmed lives that are not at risk so we can bury our heads in the sand. We aren’t the people who will die from our mistakes.
Either you’re misunderstanding closet to mean a built-in wardrobe or… I don’t know what other explanation there could be. American closets (i.e: a whole room of 100+ square feet, dedicated to storage of clothes) just don’t exist in “normal” European flats/apartments/homes. You’d be an outlier if you have an American-style closet in Europe. Regardless of how much you’re spending, they just don’t exist in >95% of properties.
You’re arguing that a younger audience would never care for what critics have to say, in which case, Pitchfork was doomed to die regardless of the choices they made: if you’re not bringing in a new audience, you’re dying, because of churn.
Perhaps wokeness hastened the loss of the old audience but evolving to meet the changing tastes of your potential audience is important, otherwise, you’re setting a date for your death.
That said, I don’t think it was a cynical attempt to ride a trend but rather evolution in response to the writers and editors evolving in their understanding of music and the world. After all, Pitchfork was always a representation of the tastes of the writers and editors. Of all the people you’d expect to be at the forefront of cultural evolution, writers about culture are up there.
Audm was an article narration service which was eventually acquired by the New York Times. The service is now part of the NYT but still narrates articles across many publications — including the New Yorker.
it’s trivial to avoid. Do not accept instructions outside of the standard instruction channels. The only reason this scheme works is because of bad processes, bad training or a culture of fear (where employees feel compelled to comply with any demand regardless of process for fear of losing their job).
If an employee routinely receives email or zoom instructions to transfer $25m without any sort of sign off then the company is completely at fault for terrible process.
Why are they a violation of the tourist status? A tourist is someone who brings money in to the local economy, that’s why tourists are coveted. If a person visits Japan for a week and spends $2000 on a hotel and $1000 on activities, why would the Japanese government change their view of the trip if that tourist was also taking zoom calls from their hotel room?
There’s the belief we all apparently hold that tourism isn’t tourism if you take a laptop, but nobody can evidence such a rule because it’s apparently an implied rule: maybe we can get to the bottom of it by asking why, what explanation / reason would there be for such a rule? Why does taking zoom calls from your hotel room change the nature of your trip?
That’s not true. The jurisdiction that your business operates in doesn’t change depending on where you’re located. If you’re running a business without a business entity (why?) then you can use a merchant of record service (like Paddle) which will serve that role for you.
A digital nomad visa serves an important purpose: it allows someone to stay in the country longer than as a tourist. The existence of a digital nomad visa bolsters the understanding that digital nomads are allowed to use a tourist visa.
A working visa is very difficult to get in most countries and requires local sponsorship because of the risk to the local economy — you’re potentially taking a local job from local people. Tourist visas are easy to get because there’s no risk: a tourist arrives, spends money, leaves. A digital nomad is a tourist by every measure.
The reason tourist visas are short is to ensure people don’t move to the country without permission. A digital nomad doesn’t present a risk to the local economy so bumping their length of stay is safe for the local economy, hence, digital nomad visas.
“The most similar existing status is usually used by tourists, does not allow work and allows a maximum stay of just 90 days”
I don’t think that’s correct. A tourist visa doesn’t allow you to work locally but they do not limit working remotely for an overseas company. For example, if you’re on vacation in Japan from the US and an emergency happens at work, you can join a call without risk of deportation.
I mean small relative to big artists, not small in absolute numbers. If you have less than 1k streams you probably have less than 50 listeners which is basically nothing.
A (relatively) small audience would be made up of tens of thousands of listeners generating millions of streams. There are many, many independent artists that fall into this group.
People say this but don’t understand the reason artists don’t make much per-listener on Spotify etc. is because of their record deals, it’s nothing to do with Spotify. If you’re an independent artist you can live comfortably off of a small Spotify audience!
The stories you hear about an artist getting pennies on millions of listens are because of their record deals and the credits on their work. You can’t solve this with software: artists enter these deals long before software is involved.
I’d argue that Spotify (and YouTube and TikTok etc) have done more for musicians because they’ve made it very easy to make a living when you have a core listener base. Software has not rescued major label artists from major label contracts because… how can it?
The music of today is built on the music of yesterday and so on and so forth. The top 100 of 1970 has very little variety when compared to the top 100 of 2023. There’s 5 decades of genres that have developed since 1970. Electronic music hadn’t even entered the mainstream! Go and listen to the top 100 of 1970 and then the top 100 of 2023.
You can argue that music in the 1970s was better / unique / less repetitive but to say it was more varied is demonstrably false.
Don’t charge based on profile visits: you’ll punish people for utilising the service and you’ll create a negative experience when someone reaches that limit. People should choose to pay as an active decision to gain access to new features. I’d be happy to pay for a service like this but “the link you’ve shared isn’t going to work any more unless you pay immediately” would leave a very bad taste in my mouth.
We have so much lower hanging fruit to tackle first that doesn’t even require research: what’s the point in extending your miserable life a couple more miserable years? Adding a decade on to your life of extreme privilege is worthwhile, but for the majority of people on earth, simply getting them on to a nutritious diet would do far more for their quality of life and their lifespan than slowing down aging ever could. So much human suffering is a result of policy, not lack of scientific understanding.
Slowing down aging is like going to space: it’s a fun complicated problem for nerds to think about but it is utterly meaningless to the quality of 99% of lives on earth.
The headline is technically accurate but miscommunicates the conclusions we should draw. The subjects sniffed women’s “emotional” tears but the control was an odourless liquid. Therefore what they actually validated was whether smelling something before engaging in a game designed to illicit anger reduced anger. What if they smelled perfume? The tears of a man? Non-emotional tears? Freshly cut grass? There’s zero evidence that women’s “emotional” tears were important.