Vendor management is a risk that every business deals with to some capacity. What keeps Microsoft from charging more for Windows licenses? Linux, MacOS, even Chromebooks. A business who puts all their eggs in one vendor's basket without any exit strategy will either have to pay up, sell, or fold, but that kind of behavior from a vendor will have their other customers looking for a door.
Launching competitors? Maybe so, but this too has existing analogs pre-AI[1]. The fact that many start-ups today are created with the explicit goal of being acquired rather than growing organically or existing in perpetuity tells me that the only thing that may change is the cost of Sherlocking a startup will come down below the cost to acquire. But if the cost of creating a start-up and using a lawyer-bot to protect its intellectual property also come down, then the math isn't settled.
People have seemed critical of the presentation, scope, and goal of this program. (e.g. It's not "universal" basic income, the number of recipients is limited to 2,000, and why are artists being subsidized instead of essential workers?)
Now it seems that we'll get some real world answer to those questions/concerns.
> and why are artists being subsidized instead of essential workers?
There are far more than 2,000 real, paying jobs for schoolteachers. And for grocery clerks. And for nurses. And for fire fighters. And for drivers of rubbish lorries. And for ...
Not so much for the folks who hope to be the next James Joyce or Louis le Brocquy.
With the modest size of the monthly checks, most of them may need to do that anyway.
But the obvious point is to help "artists" in Ireland. It's pretty normal for small nations to want to cultivate / protect / subsidize their arts / culture / language / whatever. The Irish gov't isn't trumpeting this program because they think it'll annoy Irish voters.
But I think people who benefit from this won’t be artists. But people who are good at making money off artsy projects.
I’d see much more value in investing in supply and demand. First, provide free studios with arts supplies, music instruments and so on. Next, force government agencies to hire local artists. Make municipalities have live music for local events and hire local musicians. Make gov agencies buy local art for decorations etc.
325 Euros/week sounds like basic rent & food & transportation. Not artsy projects with enough spare Euros for someone to skim serious money off from.
Providing "free" studios, supplies, instruments, etc. sounds like a scheme to give politicians more photo ops and bureaucrats more jobs. Why can't the artists just source exactly what they think they need from existing supply chains?
> 325 Euros/week sounds like basic rent & food & transportation. Not artsy projects with enough spare Euros for someone to skim serious money off from.
Exactly. But it's a nice addition for „project-conscious“ crowd who can add one more income stream.
> Providing "free" studios, supplies, instruments, etc. sounds like a scheme to give politicians more photo ops and bureaucrats more jobs
Some libraries here started providing free studios with some basic instruments. I hear it was a hit with long wait times. It's awesome for artsy people who want to get together and jam with friends on saturday morning. Artsy people neighbours also love it that they don't have to hear said jams too :)
It's also great for kids who want to give it a shot. It's easier to come in and find some instruments than try to get some used stuff just to play.
I'm all for enabling people to do artsy stuff en-masse. The more people give it a shot, the better. Results don't matter, playing and creating something (no matter how crappy) is important.
IMO „mass-playing-with-art“ has much better ROI than handouts to let a selected crop of people pretend they're living off their art.
Yes, supporting en-masse stuff is important. Artsy or not - playgrounds, parks, football pitches, and other things count. Or spaces for civic choral groups and painting clubs, repairing old church organs, ...
For the arts, free studios & such are both en-masse support, and a wider part of the talent funnel (vs. basic incomes).
Biggest problem that I see with basic incomes is in selecting who gets those. The article notes they'll pick randomly from 8,000 applicants - but there's judgement and selection somewhere. Otherwise, the scheme would implode politically after giving money to folks whose "art" was offensive graffiti, or appreciating expensive whiskey, or whatever.
That is a problem too. Offensive art is art too. I'd even argue that offensive art in many cases is better than non-offensive one. But yes, I guess at best „politically correct offensive“ artists will get approved.
It brings another problem that this may become sort of hush money government-at-the-time friendly artists.
Here it's already a problem for culture-ministry-financed projects. When some artists get funding, others don't... And then some people cry foul that it's because they crossed ways with some politician. Wether that's true or not, when arts funding and politics go together, it's a recipe for some sour FB posts.
Yes, and Ireland is not famed for its "all one big happy family" politics. That might be one of their reasons for drawing 2,000 winners at random from 8,000 applicants.
But in a democracy, gov't-selected art has a failure mode more fundamental than mere political bias - the voters may decide they're paying too much for really crappy "art". That's what killed the public art program in the city I live in. In hindsight, the city's Art Committee was dominated by cutting-edge academics, big-ego art snobs, and well-intended persuadables.
Though the fountain they built in front of City Hall - abstract, drearily convoluted, generally ugly, horribly expensive, and usually broken - could be seen as appropriate and spot-on symbolic political art.
artists dont do "normal" and generaly experience reality from a particular, and personal point of view, and grocerie store managers and young artists will almost certainly have mutualy antagonistic points of view. artists thrive in random spontainious environments, but forget about food, so we give them money, that they give to normal grocery store clerks, and we all forgo the seething frustration that would result from your suggestion.
What I see among artist friends, they have no problems holding a job. But their art is not exactly „bill-paying“. It's not bad, it's just not commercializable mainstream. At best it covers their expenses for studios, equipment and so on.
For that crowd, money for 3 years is not really interesting. It would ruin their existing (smaller or bigger) non-artsy careers. But their art, without significant mainstream changes, has no chance to cover a living. Even after focusing on it for 3 years.
I don't see a point to give such crowd a free ride either. They're fully capable society members. I don't see a difference between such artist getting a free ride vs me getting free money to ride my bicycle because I'd maybe do some cool shit if I had more time. Or maybe I should get a handout to do some opensource? Code is also art anyway.
This was a solved problem in the 1st and 2nd generation of AirPods with tap controls[1]. I'm still surprised that they removed that feature in favor of pressure, although now that I'm reflecting more on it, I wonder if it's part of Apple using their manufacturing and engineering as a moat[2]. i.e. Tap controls are relatively easy, so once wireless earbuds became commodities, they had to figure out some way to differentiate themselves.
That said, as someone who does pottery (messy hands), wears gloves/hats (stuff in the way), and has relatively poor fine motor control, I guess I welcome any solution that doesn't mean getting clay or cold air in my hair/ear.
The battery consumption and latency of the IR cameras will be interesting though. Too sensitive, and you'll eat up your battery. Not sensitive enough, and UX suffers.
The survey this is based on[1] counts listening to audiobooks as "reading", which can only inflate the numbers.
I have nothing against audiobooks, but they are not the same as reading. It is a passive consumption of the content. You can daydream or lose focus and the story keeps rolling on. If you lose focus while reading, the story stops. You may find that you've "read" a few sentences, but it's quickly self-correcting.
Additionally, reading forces you to parse tone, interpret context, and resolve syntactic ambiguity on your own. Listening to a narrator removes those tasks.
I think that this door was opened when we started accepting that reading graphic novels was the same as reading a book of text. Rather than elevating new(ish) media for storytelling for their own merit, we've lumped them into another medium that was already deemed "good".
All that said, listening to an audiobook or reading a graphic novel is still better than not reading a book at all.
I used to think the same way as you about audiobooks but this year I had three weeks where I wasn't supposed to read a screen after eye surgery and so I tried some audiobooks. It took a few days but eventually I got to the point where it was indistinguishable from reading - where I could picture in my mind everything happening.
This is quite different from tv and film where you're just watching and not using your mind.
I think you are fairly unique in audiobook consumption though. I imagine most people (myself included when I do) consume audiobooks where they would have otherwise listened to podcasts or radio, meaning stochastically in the car, doing chores, generally during other activities.
If I were to sit down in my book corner chair, putting on an audiobook and leaning back, I can imagine I'd have the same experience as you, but that is when I would otherwise read a book the traditional way. Perhaps this will change when I get older and wish to rest my eyes and arms while taking in a book.
I'll double up here. For me, audiobooks are 'the same' as reading a book. Yes, I know they are not exactly the same, but the experience for me is pretty darn close enough.
Now, I use audiobooks because I can then take the dog for a walk and do other chores while listening to them. For me, it's a good way to get my mind working while my body is too. Plus, you can speed up the narration to some multiple so you're at the same pace as if you were reading anyway.
For me, it's no different than if I were a cigar roller with someone reading out a book to the lot of us.
Is it exactly the same? No, of course not. But if the alternatives to doing chores is 1) doing them with no auditory enjoyment 2) doing them with some podcast/radio station blaring topical news 3) doing them with a classic book
then, I'm going for 3. It's just the best use of time
I think you are fairly unique in your inability to listen to audiobooks. I talk with a lot of friends about books and have been in very long-running book clubs. Almost nothing differentiates book readers and book listeners. Mostly book readers don't know how to pronounce some character names.
The ability to picture the scene in your mind is not why listening to an audiobook is different from reading.
Put another way, reading involves:
1. Parsing and interpreting the words on the page.
2. Synthesizing the information in our heads (scenes, arguments, etc.)
3. Interpreting the synthesis (Does it work? Is there subtle or implied information in the synthesis? What comes next?)
My argument is that audiobooks drastically alter step 1.
Let's not denigrate any forms of media though. They all have their unique benefits. You can use your mind or not during the consumption of any of them.
"The LADWP tells Eyewitness News they will cover the cost of installing a new fire hydrant at the price tag of $35,000."[1]
The median sale price in the Pacific Palisades is ~$2 Million.[2]
The homeowners said "Our insurance certainly wouldn't have covered [a new hydrant]." And according to them, the LAFD said "please contact LADWP to get a cost estimate for what you'll have to pay to build and install this new hydrant." Emphasis mine.
Even if the homeowners had to bear the entire cost, assuming they had a median home, a new hydrant would be 1.75% of the value of the house, equivalent to a $7,175 expense for a home valued at the US median price of $410,000.
I feel for these people. No matter who you are, losing your home is a terrible experience. But it's ridiculous to choose to rebuild in a clearly fire-prone area, and then complain that the city needs to you install fire protection as part of the building.
This should have been a matter between the homeowners and their insurance company.
It shouldn't be an out of pocket cost unless the fire department isn't publicly funded.
This is what taxes are for. You pay your locality tax, you get service from the fire department. If some plot of land within city limits doesn't have infrastructure for firefighting, that's the city's problem. If a plot of land can't be serviced by firefighters, it shouldn't be zoned and permitted for residential construction.
Fire departments are funded via property taxes, and prop 13 messes up what per house pays. They probably have no choice but to charge home owners for improvements that would typically come from property taxes due to dumb decisions made by Reaganites 50 years ago, but at least they have cheap property taxes
What data completely disagrees with them and what does it disagree with them about?
The "Persons Killed, by Highest Driver Blood Alcohol Concentration (BAC) in the Crash"[1] report shows that in 2023, 30% of fatal crashes involved at least one driver with a BAC > 0.08 (the legal limit), and 36% involved a BAC > 0.01.
Interesting that "Non-motorist" fatalities have dropped dramatically for everyone under the age of 21, but increased for everyone between 21 and 74.[2] Those are raw numbers, so it'd be even more interesting to display them as a ratio of the group's size. Are less children being killed by drivers because there are less children generally? Changes in parents' habits? Backup cameras?
It's not unreasonable to expect certain behavior in a shared space.
I'm really not sure where some of the other people replying to your comment are coming from. Forcing every human and animal you come across to listen to what you're listening to is selfish. Full stop. And not doing it costs $0, which preempts any question of resources.
There are so many types of headphones that don't isolate much, including the cheapest crappy on-ears from the walkman era, there's really no excuse.
And on the few occasions where I've had no other option, it made so much more sense to set my phone to low volume and bring it close to my ear instead of holding it iut and maxing the volume.
And if I need to talk as well, many people don't know this, but there's a second smaller speaker on the opposite end of the phone, approximately one mouth-ear distance away from the microphone.
I've posted this thought a few times in different ways, but in my experience, community is found and then built.
Regularly sharing space with others is the way to start finding community. I think your surveying is an example of that. The next step is when the interactions begin taking place outside of the regular time/place, as evidenced by your epilogue.
What I haven't posted before is anything about how to successfully create those connections. Maybe we get lucky and someone will share our taste in music or movies or what have you, and the connection will be almost effortless. But to increase the rate of connection, I've found that learning to ask good questions is key.
We can learn a lot from popular interviewers like Terry Gross, Johnny Carson, or James Lipton. But to provide some direct tips: Lead with open-ended questions (i.e. not "yes or no"). Ask follow-up questions. Share a little bit while asking questions (e.g. "I'm not really into X music, more Y. Where would I start if I wanted to listen to X?")
Of course, sometimes friendships just aren't meant to be. It's tough, and can feel like a waste of time to have made the connection, but I've been surprised multiple times when a conversation that seemed like a slog of a one-off led to fruitful friendships later.
Given this is Hacker News, is there any way to "hack" the housing market to reduce costs?
Every hurdle I see seems to come back to a policy or regulatory issue. Whether it's increasing housing density, utilizing vacant spaces, or increasing transit to existing cultural/economic centers, the answer somehow requires the government.
It's not something I relish, but as I sit here tonight, I think of the rented RVs parked on the overpasses of Los Angeles. Is that model ripe for disruption? Housing not tied to real estate. Could Adam Neumann buy enough chic RVs and parking garages and make a business out of it? I think if you had enough runway, you could get the momentum, and if a city government pitched a fit, you could move out the RVs (and young professionals), and still own the parking garage. Nomadland as a service.
I hope the work of urbanists like Strong Towns makes this a non-issue. But if anyone has any other radical housing ideas that don't involve getting a government on board, I'd love to hear them.
Trailer parks have prefabricated housing rather than true trailers. These prefabs can technically be moved, but not easily or cheaply, essentially tying them to the lot. RVs can be moved easily and cheaply.
So no, this is not exactly a trailer park because it separates housing from the real estate.
I'm not pitching the RV Parking Garage concept as an ideal or even plausible solution, but as an example of a way to disrupt the housing market in developed metros.
My goal is to hear some other ideas to decrease average rents while requiring little to no government/regulatory involvement.
> requiring little to no government/regulatory involvement
I think you lose this battle as soon as you start providing residences to people. I’m not a lawyer, but I’m pretty sure that once people are living and sleeping somewhere you’re subject to zoning laws and fire codes and stuff.
With that said, the current housing situation in the US is a mess, so I’m all for reform. I’d like to hear ideas too. I personally can’t think of a solution that sidesteps regulation without becoming a slum full of desperate people, though.
Those desperate people are who most need help. Maybe improving the quality of life in "slums" is where the hacking should take place. But those improvements typically leads to gentrification and higher average rents.
Is there a way to hack governmental reform? Maybe an organization that hires lawyers to find weak zoning laws in jurisdictions where a challenge is likely to succeed, and then tests those laws in court? (Now I've reinvented a thinktank.)
Launching competitors? Maybe so, but this too has existing analogs pre-AI[1]. The fact that many start-ups today are created with the explicit goal of being acquired rather than growing organically or existing in perpetuity tells me that the only thing that may change is the cost of Sherlocking a startup will come down below the cost to acquire. But if the cost of creating a start-up and using a lawyer-bot to protect its intellectual property also come down, then the math isn't settled.
1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sherlock_(software)#Sherlocked...
reply