Interestingly I learned Python by creating scripts to automate certain tasks in runescape - although I kept all the money on the account as I didn't want to cheat the game, I just wanted to make a good enough program that wouldn't get caught by their bot detection system.
It's a really fun game - if you're ever bored, you should check it out again! They have an 'old school runescape' which is essentially how the game was in 2007, without the later changes. Definitely 10/10 nostalgia.
Haha that's awesome, there was quite a community for it back in the day. I actually log on to oldschool once in a while for the nostalgia, though I do not bot it anymore.
This is off topic, but I love/hate the system where all new content must pass a community poll. I feel like people are slowly voting for the updates that people hated back in the day (claws, ely, magic dmg % boosting gear). Stat creep is now almost as it was right before EOC, where you can get stacked out from full hp & brewed in one game tic (which kind of kills the hybrid scene)
Are you intentionally ignoring the critically acclaimed pipeline of shows/movies Netflix has produced, or are you just ignorant to their actual success.
They aren't _just_ a platform for content producers. They are producers of content. Competitors need to outprice them, our perform them, and outproduce them.
They're really just hitting their stride in content production. There's plenty of room for them to grow making stuff for their global distribution platform. They're in 190 countries and can exploit their productions worldwide.
Just P/E by itself does not say anything. Amazon was at around -3000 or more at some point and people were still buying it and pushing it up (this continues to happen even now, with Amazon's P/E being around 297 as of this very moment whereas Netflix is about 209). Even the P/E projections for the next two years look significantly favorable with Netflix than with Amazon.
The businesses are very different, but P/E as such is just one measure of market sentiment on a stock.
I feel this way, but when I examine it I don’t think it’s true. I believe they’re still releasing OitNB and HoC caliber shows at about the same rate, but now there’s so much filler in addition that it seems the days of quality are past.
What would make Netflix truly amazing, but apparently is not possible, would be if their DVD catalog was available to stream.
For very narrow values of quality, sure. I also hope to hell that the fragmentation or content distribution doesn’t continue unabated. Someone else posted the phrase earlier today, “Death by a thousand cuts,” and they’re right.
Hulu. Netflix. Amazon. CBS. Disney. FX. YouTube Red. Crunchyroll. And on and on.
It’s only vaguely workable when compared to the totslly unworkable price of American cable tv.
I think Disney is going to find that it’s harder to build a massive online service than it looks and Netflix will become an attractive merger target if they ever falter too badly.
The key is to find a cause to help in which you truly recognize the blessings/fortune/privilege/opportunities you have.
I've volunteered with animal shelters, geriatric hospitals, youth sports, and with veterans. Animal shelters were fun because I love animals, but they didn't humble me like working with veterans and the elderly. Every time I work with those groups, I learn more about life, and get insight into ways I could change how I'm living to be a better influence on society. I think that's the key - at least, that was the key for me.
My wife an I rescue dogs (and have cats from past rescues). We tend to specialize in French bulldogs, but may get an English soon. The ones we get are usually puppy mill throwaways, and have a lot of initial health problems. The vet bills definitely eat into our disposable income, but nothing else I have ever spent money on has made me happier.
If anyone gets a chance read up on puppy mills and how horrible they are. Go to a shelter and rescue an animal today.
Completely agree. We have always rescued animals either from the pound or street (our 2 cats were found as kittens outside when my wife was capturing feral cats to get them spay/neutered). Once my wife found out more about puppy mills, and how the dogs were treated she decided to do whatever she could to combat mills. Until the laws are changed though, there isn't that much that can be done to stop them. The best an individual can do is get pets from the pound or other legit rescue, and never from a pet store (some stores partner with pounds which is fine).
Figuring out whether or not Bezos is doing behind-the-scenes censorship of his own media outlet ultimately depends on the internal organizational structure of WaPo and Amazon.
If the most senior leader of WaPo - the person in charge of greenlighting or pulling articles that get published - may be fired/terminated/reassigned by Bezos, or someone who Bezos oversees, then there is a conflict of interest that can't be ignored, and will always be inherent within the organizations until this is remedied.
Now, just because there's a conflict of interest does not mean that shady reporting is occurring. But, we cannot definitively say that WaPo is unbiased towards Amazon, unless there is something about the internal controls that would separate Bezos from the ultimate decision-making.
Globalism has allowed multinational corporations to expand their economic and political influence - since they have the economies of scale to expand globally. It's true that more people have been lifted out of poverty, but the fact remains that globalism favors wealthy owners of multinationals over everyone else.
Look at how much influence western oil/tech companies have in countries around the world. Lobbies are stronger in our political realm, it really isn't fair to say that these policies benefited the poor more than the wealthy.
That's not to say that globalism is bad. But we need to be careful because as the wealthy's influence and power grows, it becomes harder to solve the problems that will come with the age of automation.
Is it possible that the game isn't zero sum? To lift a phrase from your second paragraph, is it possible that globalism favors wealthy owners of multinationals AND everyone else?
You're right to point out the risks of vast wealth disparities and the corrupting influence of money in politics, but I think that problem needs to be combatted separately, and not by making everyone less well off.
My whole comment assumes the game isn't zero sum. I recognize that globalism helps the poor. My conclusion is that it helps wealthy individuals who own these corporations more than the masses.
To break this down further, the masses gain economic value and employment. The wealthy gain political/economic influence to solidify their wealth and position.
I'm not talking about low-balling millionaires. I mean the billionaires and royalty of the world. The people who own industries, not just companies.
I appreciate your nuanced comment, but I think it's important to also recognize that it's better for everyone's fortunes to increase even unequally than for everyone to be equally impoverished. There is no economic law that says equality begets wealth creation, so the conversation needs to be about balancing equality with wealth creation. The left seems to think the conversation should only be about equality, and the right seems to think it's only about wealth creation. And if I had to be overly simplistic, I would err on the right, given the respective track records of capitalism and socialism (I know a lot of people throw a fit at any positive mention of 'capitalism', but please note I'm not saying that unregulated markets are optimal--only that they significantly outperform planned economies).
I did my bachelors in economics, and one of our textbooks taught that all other things being equal (ceteris paribus), more equality means less wealth creation. Why? Wealth will naturally concentrate in the hands of those more capable of creating it: if Jo is making 2% per annum return and Jane is making 4% per annum return, and they both start with the same amount, then Jane's share of the total wealth pool will continuously increase relative to Jo. The key thing to note is that as Jane's making better use of resources, producing twice as much from them as Jo, if we take resources from Jane to give to Jo then they'll be used less effectively, slowing overall growth.
To illustrate, imagine they both start with $1000 each. The total wealth pool is hence $2000, and they both have 50% each, perfect equality. Now, let's look 50 years in the future, assuming the previously mentioned interest rates per annum compounding annually. According to http://www.moneychimp.com/calculator/compound_interest_calcu..., Jo will have $2,691.59 and Jane will have $7,106.68. The total wealth pool is $9,798.27. Jo hence now has 27.47%, and Jane has 72.53%. They're both less equal, but they're also both wealthier, and the overall wealth pool has increased.
Now, let's look ahead another 50 years. If no wealth transfer occurs, Jane will have $69,633.20 and Jo will have $19,128.28, with the total wealth pool being $88,761.48. If we equalise wealth, however, such that both have $4,899.13, then in 50 years they'll each have $34,816.57, for a total
wealth pool of $69,633.14. This is 78.45% of the total wealth pool that there would be if no wealth transfer took place.
In this sense there is hence a direct tradeoff between growth and financial equality.
Thanks for the informative comment. I'm getting some downvotes, so I want to clarify that I agree with you, and if my comment suggested otherwise, it's a miscommunication.
It's not proper grammar :) Proper grammar would be "What does the name mean?"
It's written this way simply because it's a question I've heard a lot, and when people say it, they usually combine "what" and "does" and say "What's the name mean?"
People don't buy Tesla because of what it does (make a profit selling cars) they buy it because they're making cars "to make the world a better place," by releiving reliance on fossil fuels.
The why is more influential than the what. It's the same reason people are dumb enough to pay a 40% premium for Apple products that are equal in any meaningful metric to a PC.
It's a really fun game - if you're ever bored, you should check it out again! They have an 'old school runescape' which is essentially how the game was in 2007, without the later changes. Definitely 10/10 nostalgia.