It's always baffling to me to see people in tech, particularly in hackernews, talking about others earning salaries many times the median of the country and acting like these are people who just simply have no other choice.
They really, really do. In fact, those salaries being so high is probably also due to the fact that you will be doing work that's a net-worse for the world so they gotta compensate accordingly.
A lot of these firms are parasitic institutions at a society level. They do benefit themselves and their workers at the expense of everyone else. Personally, I find it hard to respect someone that takes that choice, but I also get it. A lot of people only care about their own and their immediate people's benefit.
On that note, I really recommend "No other choice" by Park Chan-wook or the book ("The Ax") it is based on.
The OP is using 'modern art' as a derogatory term; I doubt very much they care about accuracy. I doubt a trip to MoMA would be enlightening. It's just a hand wave across 'all those things about art I don't understand are bad'.
This is a very confused comment chain. Anyway, my use of "modern" was not relative to art history periods, but in the naive, common-sense form: it's happening currently and in the very recent past.
And I've seen plenty of contemporary art, read my share of ARTNews articles, and read plenty of artist's statements. I'm enlightened enough - there's great and terrible art being made now, just like there was in 1750. But the frisson of "art talk" happening currently is what I was referring to, and I'd separate that from the merits of the art itself.
That said, I will now channel the curmudgeon you describe and observe that some contemporary artists seem to put a great deal of effort into the art talk side of presenting their work, as though the art talk is in fact part of the piece. And I get it, it kind of is, and nothing exists outside of a context. But as a viewer I just don't want someone talking in my ear telling me what to think.
You're typically issued a corporate phone, it's the only phone that can open work email. You have a choice between an Android (something like a Pixel and a Samsung) and an iPhone, with some companies incentivising Androids with things like a faster upgrade cycle or more premium trims. The culture is split between having just the one free corporate phone and having two phones - one personal, one corporate.
There are lots of examples of Android team employees who are proud of using only Apple phones.
Check the "socially inept tech roast show" - where people from those teams demonstrate their ignorance and hatered towards own products and users.
Since they dont use them, they dont see nor care about bugs.
Meanwhile if you work for a cola company and they catch you drinking competing product you will get fired (your contract bans you fron that). Same for many other products.
I understand using an Apple phone to learn what it does / its featurs, but those Android employees dont use Android at all. And it shows
I was wondering about that - there is no border really - you seem to drive across and the border patrol folks just asks you nicely - What is the nature of your business?
The way China approached their internal market for EVs is very different.
They didn't just put tariffs on foreign EVs, they poured a lot of money into their own industry to produce a lot of different companies that became fiercely competitive in their own local market.
Once they got a few big players they stop a lot of the subsidies which led to a lot of companies falling under but at the same time the process produced some really good, competitive and profitable companies like BYD which then were ready to take on the international market.
America, on the other hand, hasn't done much to increase the competitiveness of their own internal market for EVs. Hence, the protectionist measures will have the consequences the poster above described.
Tariffs are not "good" or "bad" they're an economic tool countries can use. It's how you use the tool and in conjunction with which other tools that can have negative or positive consequences for the industry they're applying it to.
It's like "america uses a scalpel to peel oranges" versus "China uses a scalpel in open heart surgeries". The scalpel can cut, but context matters to say if it was used properly or not.
Ok but this thread is about “all tariffs being rent seeking”. Now tariffs are sometimes ok - gotcha.
What has china actually don’t different than America? Was a 10-15 percent subsidy not enough? Were the carbon credits not enough? We’re the limitations on gas cars dependent on ev sales not enough?
As far as I’m aware both china and the us have heavily subsidized ev sales. What’s different?
Because so far if we left it to AI they would be much quicker to do it [1]
[1] https://www.newscientist.com/article/2516885-ais-cant-stop-r...
reply