There have already been several attempts to adapt the series as a movie or TV series, but unfortunately nothing ever came of it.

And yes, given the scope, a series would probably be better, but it would certainly require a high budget.

Red Rising by Pierce Brown.

With the entire book series, there is plenty of material for sequels.

Yes, that’s true. I just find it funny that Amazon named this line of business after a fraudulent device. For some of the things you can do with it, it’s probably quite the fitting name.

A perfectly legitimate question, especially since this misleading approach is precisely why Amazon’s Mechanical Turk is named like that.

The Mechanical Turk, also known as the Automaton Chess Player, was a fraudulent chess-playing machine built by Wolfgang von Kempelen in 1770. It appeared to play chess autonomously but was actually operated by a skilled human chess player hidden inside. (Source)

I don’t know the answer, but I assume that it probably has something to do with money and power…

That’s all well and good, but the problem remains: Namely, the fact that Meta earns far more every day than all companies worldwide earn from the sale of T-shirts put together - much, much more. And Meta pretty much doesn’t even sell anything physical (Oculus, c’mon). They mainly just sell massive reach for advertisements and PR (influencing opinions). In addition they sell, the personal data of users to make that work devilishly acuarate. As long as the vast majority doesn’t care how this business model works and what power the centralization of attention actually means even for their own reality, nothing will change, I’m afraid.

Yes, just terrible management. They could have just made good money, but no, there has to be more. So excessive greed at any price - now it’s just bankruptcy. But I’m sure that won’t bother the senior management: they’ve already put their millions in a safe place and will simply move on. The next company that needs their outstanding leadership is bound to come along…

I think there is a very simple solution to all your problems with reddit…

I think what makes most people pessimistic is not technology itself, but the realization that it is always embedded in existing conditions and cannot change these conditions of its own accord.

The internet in particular has shown very impressively in the lifetime of many how quickly promising technology geared towards the common good can actually make life worse instead of improving it for everyone.

Yes, it’s worth it, I’d say. Especially in the context of today’s communication and other theoretical approaches in this field such as “the spiral of silence”.

Because the advertising business is highly centralized. Getting sponsorships is not as easy as you think.

An example: YouTube pays content producers per click, so to speak, a ridiculously small amount, but in total, with billions of clicks, a crazy amount. The money to finance this comes largely from advertising revenue (also Google’s main business model). They are the Gatekeepers so to speak.

But the content producers can’t live off this because Google keeps most of it for itself. They do give people the opportunity to find sponsors themselves tho - and that’s how people actually make the most money. But you have to find them for yourself or through intermediaries (that’s an industry in itself). This is only realistic if you have sufficient reach (subscribers in the example). And that, in turn, is only possible if you have already invested hundreds of hours in the production of content (you can’t make a living if you don’t get paid for that).

So I think it would be best if the platforms themselves were powerful enough in terms of reach to be able to negotiate well with advertisers. But not as powerful as Google, for example, who can afford to pay content producers a pittance because - unlike small platforms - they are not dependent on them.

I think we should be realistic. Content costs money because it requires a lot of effort. It’s naïve to think that content would just be created because people feel like posting something. If the Fediverse is to compete with companies like meta, this is only possible if there are opportunities for content creators to earn money. That should be self-evident, but it obviously isn’t here.

I’m not saying it’s necessary, but it is if the Fediverse is to have mainstream appeal.

Simply because the absolute majority of people are out and about where everyone is. And that’s where the content is. That’s the point: if you want good content, it costs money. It’s not just corporations that make a living from it.

What I want to say is this: The Fediverse could provide fairer conditions for the people who produce content. That makes sense and is necessary because the Internet lives from that.

I just don’t understand why people here don’t want to realize that work has to be paid for. That’s really strange.

That sounds as if Musk could soon make an offer to take over the company. Then probably also an out-of-court settlement worth some millions so that he can call himself co-founder as usual. Finally, he could speed off into the sunset on a goddamn cyberbike - hopefully never to be seen again.

True that. It’s the lesser evil. That would probably even be the case if it wasn’t just a deal for the Chinese market.

deleted by creator

Hard to believe but still true: Some time ago even Onlyfans, which was originally intended as a platform for fitness videos and the like, tried to ban NSFW content for exactly the same reason - to the surprise of absolutely noone it wasn’t a very successful endeavor and was quickly withdrawn.

Isn’t NSFW stuff a big part of all reddit OC content and the reason many still have an account there?

Fine by me, as long as the Bluetooth logo is never changed. Long live King Harald Gormsson, the unifier!

C’mon, we can’t expect the coroner to blow the whistle on the actual cause of death. If we did, there would soon be no coroners left.

Absolutely right. But the thing is that many so-called leaders will no longer have a raison d’être if there are no more unnecessary meetings and all that fuss. Many of them do nothing all day but sit in meetings, achieve nothing and still feel very important. That’s the misery of the world of work: it’s not usually the best who get into management positions, it’s not the most qualified and certainly not the ones who work the hardest. It’s the most unscrupulous, those who pass off the work of others as their own, people who would never achieve anything on their own or in a small company that can’t afford to waste salaries on froth-mongers. LinkedIn makes it clear how this all works, I think: there, too, it is not the competent people who really understand their work who have the most success, it is the busybodies, the networkers and narcissists. If the competent people set the tone, there would be no discussion about office duties in an IT company. It’s only held on to so that managers can live out their fantasies of omnipotence and post nonsense on LinkedIn.

Don’t clog the toilets. It’s not the c-suites who have to clean that up.