Lol. Not a boomer. Just wait until you have parents late in retirement and have declining health. If you care enough to care for them you'll realize the amount of stress and work it takes.
Copernican
joined 2 years ago
You were talking about the streaming platform specifically as an industry.
it's an industry that's earning literal billions every single year...they absolutely don't need to have ads, they could serve their paying users a good ad-free product, and still make money. They choose to deliberately annoy their paying customers because they're fucking greedy.
It's okay to be corrected.
You're acting as if there's not a plurality of opinion in that cohort. And it's also about Gen X who is about to hit that retirement cliff being discussed. It's also about class and questions of forced retirement because bodies no longer allow folks to work that allegedly claim they would if they could.
And if we are making morale arguments about human dignity and what society should do, that applies to these older generations as well despite their previous political contributions.
Fake news. Netflix is the only one making a profit. https://www.cnbc.com/2023/09/17/hollywood-streaming-profits-struggles.html
I don't know why lemmy users love spreading misinformation that all streaming platforms are taking in profit hand over fist.
That doesn't help people currently approaching 65 that this article is focusing on.
Look at the reuters article cited: https://www.reuters.com/technology/ai-companies-lose-190-billion-market-cap-after-alphabet-microsoft-report-2024-01-31/
Jan 30 (Reuters) - AI-related companies lost $190 billion in stock market value late on Tuesday after Microsoft (MSFT.O), opens new tab, Alphabet (GOOGL.O), opens new tab and Advanced Micro Devices (AMD.O), opens new tab delivered quarterly results that failed to impress investors who had sent their stocks soaring. The selloff following the tech giants' reports after the bell underscored investors' elevated expectations following an AI-fueled stock market rally in recent months that propelled their shares to record highs with the promise of incorporating the technology across the corporate landscape.
I don't know that I would say this has anything inherently to do with AI...
The reuters article for AMD specifically: https://www.reuters.com/technology/high-flying-chipmakers-hit-after-amds-forecast-falls-short-2024-01-31/
Jan 31 (Reuters) - High-flying semiconductor stocks slipped on Wednesday after Advanced Micro Devices' (AMD.O) disappointing current-quarter revenue forecast added to investor worries over sluggish demand for non-AI chips
...
That overshadowed the company near doubling its AI processor projections to $3.5 billion for 2024.
TV economics are hard. I think where basic cable and network TV make it work is that the content was filmed in a way to have natural ad breaks to make it less disruptive to the viewing experience. That becomes terrible when you shoehorn ads into places they don't belong. On the other hand, watching that content without ad breaks that was filmed with ad breaks also plays out weird because you'll have that commercial cliffhaner music/scene that is quickly followed with resolution before you have time to wonder "what is going to happen?" So shit gets weird when you have a tier model where some people get ad breaks and others don't because your content isn't made to satisfy both use cases.
TV is expensive to make and these are businesses that make money. A simple reductive "if user pays any money they deserve no ads" problem. It's a challenge of things like "The business needs to make X dollars per user and if we have ads we need to charge Y bucks where Y = X - expected ad revenue." The other challenge is in order to have an ad business you need to convince advertisers you have ad viewers they want to reach. Well, advertisers like rich people with lots of money, and they probably don't have the cheaper ad supported tiers. So can a TV company really support a completely ad free tier? Or do they still need to serve some, but less ads, to make sure their advertisers know they can get their ads seen by the platforms richest users?
So what happens if a person allows their likeness to be 3d modeled and textured for something like a video game, and that 3d model is used to create explicit images. Is that not a problem (or maybe a different kind of problem) because it's not a deepfake and instead a use of a digital asset?
Interesting. So is Tesla fucking up so bad that they don't even have vendors that know how to hide the fucked up job they do? Or do they have vendor's that may also be to blame?
"Google and Apple should manage consent, but let me manage payments directly so I don't have to pay them."
It doesn't mean that this is not a social problem we need to face a solve today. Like if we could establish a UBI, would we just not give it to people over 65? I don't understand how folks here are so retributive to a whole generation, when probably 40 to 45 percent of that generation didn't vote for Reagan.