I was taking this article seriously until I arrived at the Terrence McKenna bit. His opinions are highly subjective, based on personal experience with drugs, and they aren't a compelling, testable, or comparable line of thought. Not to mention that TM is pretentious as hell and basis his whole outlook on life on doing loads of DMT (he hardly talks about anything else).
Modern Malaise
11–20 of 144 posts
Re: Modern Malaise
#12Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why should the difference not be so stark? That's how the power law works, most people follow only a few accounts.
> That's how the power law works who says that the payout distribution has to follow the power law? And even if it does naturally, OnlyFans doesn't have to just let it happen. They could take a bigger cut from the larger accounts, and distribute it such that the payouts are more linear.
>who says that the payout distribution has to follow the power law?
The payout distribution is proportional to the number of subscribers, which follows a power law.
>And even if it does naturally, OnlyFans doesn't have to just let it happen. They could take a bigger cut from the larger accounts, and distribute it such that the payouts are more linear.
How is taking a larger relative cut from the content creators bringing in the most traffic a good (much less optimal) business decision?
Re: Modern Malaise
#13The problem is not that wages are growing too slowly, that is the symptom. The problem is that productivity is growing too slowly. Fixing the problem requires far more technology and automation than we have delivered.
If productivity grows primarily because of enabling capital, the proceeds from this growth will accrue more to the owner of capital than the laborer, roughly proportional to the contribution of each.
The problem is that human capital has saturated for many people. This is borne out by stagnating gains in education.
If productivity gains occur mostly because of technology with little human input, then that further bifurcates society between owners of that technology and everyone else. This does not help alleviate the modern malaise.
People are quick to point out the dropping of the gold standard, the end of cheap fossil fuels, the neoliberal economic changes, etc. that all occurred during the 1970s, and those all matter. But there's another factor which is that educational outcomes began to stagnate.
I don't think returning productivity growth to the postwar rate would have as much of an effect as it did then, because more of the productivity growth would be because of technology with concentrated ownership rather than broad gains in human ability.
Re: Modern Malaise
#14I was taking this article seriously until I arrived at the Terrence McKenna bit. His opinions are highly subjective, based on personal experience with drugs, and they aren't a compelling, testable, or comparable line of thought. Not to mention that TM is pretentious as hell and basis his whole outlook on life on doing loads of DMT (he hardly talks about anything else).
[deleted]
Re: Modern Malaise
#15Earlier quoted context omitted.
> That's how the power law works who says that the payout distribution has to follow the power law? And even if it does naturally, OnlyFans doesn't have to just let it happen. They could take a bigger cut from the larger accounts, and distribute it such that the payouts are more linear.
>who says that the payout distribution has to follow the power law? The payout distribution is proportional to the number of subscribers, which follows a power law. >And even if it does naturally, OnlyFans doesn't have to just let it happen. They could take a bigger cut from the larger accounts, and distribute it such that the payouts are more linear. How is taking a larger relative cut from the content creators brin…
If you're a new creator, and you look at this:
https://twitter.com/Aella_Girl/status/1335725267340251137
are you really going to want to start an account on that site? Your comment seems to align with typical capitalist motives: focus on short term gains, ignore everything else.
Re: Modern Malaise
#16Earlier quoted context omitted.
If they do this, won’t they just fracture and drive the larger accounts elsewhere?
If every single user wants to be a soulless robot (pure capitalism), then yes. However if the userbase understands that larger accounts will be subject to larger fees, in order to support smaller accounts , then I would like to think at least some users would support that. Not everything in life has to be decided on a purely selfish basis.
So OnlyFans should pay people to post nudes ? (Rather than providing a place to post pictures and charge other people for them, in case you missed it)
I see this same argument made about Tinder, from guys who can't get laid.
You realize it's just a platform don't you ? Those are real human beings on the other side of that screen. OnlyFans can't choose for the humans on the platform.
Re: Modern Malaise
#17Earlier quoted context omitted.
>who says that the payout distribution has to follow the power law? The payout distribution is proportional to the number of subscribers, which follows a power law. >And even if it does naturally, OnlyFans doesn't have to just let it happen. They could take a bigger cut from the larger accounts, and distribute it such that the payouts are more linear. How is taking a larger relative cut from the content creators brin…
If you're a new creator, and you look at this: https://twitter.com/Aella_Girl/status/1335725267340251137 are you really going to want to start an account on that site? Your comment seems to align with typical capitalist motives: focus on short term gains, ignore everything else.
>are you really going to want to start an account on that site?
If I thought it would benefit me and was worth my time, then yes? Is the implication one shouldn't try to earn extra income because someone else earns more?
>Your comment seems to align with typical capitalist motives: focus on short term gains, ignore everything else.
That's somewhat of an ad hominem. Anyways I'm all ears if you have a superior evidence-based economic model, instead of selling utopia.
Re: Modern Malaise
#18I was taking this article seriously until I arrived at the Terrence McKenna bit. His opinions are highly subjective, based on personal experience with drugs, and they aren't a compelling, testable, or comparable line of thought. Not to mention that TM is pretentious as hell and basis his whole outlook on life on doing loads of DMT (he hardly talks about anything else).
That's not fair, he also talked about doing loads of mushrooms.
Quote is in number 14 if anyone wants to read it themselves. You'll also see that the Ayn Rand quote mentioned in the sibling comment comes with critical commentary.
Re: testability
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mf0fLKjCKHA&t=73s
"So then the people who don't do psychedelics say 'well this is something it's like channeling or all this other stuff'. No it isn't, because we are not like those people. I mean, I maintain this rigorously, that our bit is intellectual rigor, not airheadedness. We're willing to put as much pressure on the ideas as you want we just believe in fairness. So, that it's not ipso facto that there's no such thing as elves. It's that if you think there are elves, prove it to me! Well, then the problem is that the skeptic, the critic, says, 'well the notion that are elves is just, you know, you're sadly deluded. You're living in your own private Idaho.' But then, you say, 'well, the proof of the pudding is a 15-minute DMT trip. Are you willing to carry on this criticism after having made the experiment, sir?' I mean, we're not like UFO enthusiasts. We're not telling you to stand in cornfields in the dead of night and pray. No, no, this will work! This will work on you, you the reductionist, you the doubter, you the constipated egomaniacal father-dominator. It'll work! And they say at that point 'You know, you are a menace, is what you are!'.
Re: Modern Malaise
#19Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you're a new creator, and you look at this: https://twitter.com/Aella_Girl/status/1335725267340251137 are you really going to want to start an account on that site? Your comment seems to align with typical capitalist motives: focus on short term gains, ignore everything else.
>are you really going to want to start an account on that site? If I thought it would benefit me and was worth my time, then yes? Is the implication one shouldn't try to earn extra income because someone else earns more? >Your comment seems to align with typical capitalist motives: focus on short term gains, ignore everything else. That's somewhat of an ad hominem. Anyways I'm all ears if you have a superior evidence…
> Anyways I'm all ears if you have a superior evidence-based economic model
Re: Modern Malaise
#20Earlier quoted context omitted.
>are you really going to want to start an account on that site? If I thought it would benefit me and was worth my time, then yes? Is the implication one shouldn't try to earn extra income because someone else earns more? >Your comment seems to align with typical capitalist motives: focus on short term gains, ignore everything else. That's somewhat of an ad hominem. Anyways I'm all ears if you have a superior evidence…
> Anyways I'm all ears if you have a superior evidence-based economic model https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32454155
Do you have sources or evidence that this linear payout system can work? Any businesses, platforms, or countries that have successfully used this type of model?