Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

On Mr. Beast and being alone in a circle for 100 days

coldhealing.substack.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

241–250 of 291 posts

Re: On Mr. Beast and being alone in a circle for 100 days

#241

Post by capitalsigma »

WastingMyTime89 wrote: post #232
mattbrewsbytes wrote: post #172

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah the interview I saw a clip out of he or a staffer stated that any mention of peeing would drop viewership. I watch woodworking youtubers and a couple of them had a behind the scenes discussion about their channels and also came to the conclusion that any wind-down loses viewers and this affects a channel. The algorithms use metrics of how long someone watches so it makes sense to end abruptly rather than have 30…

This is another great exemple of the YT algorithm making the experience of watching videos inferior in the name of profit and attention grabbing by the way. The reason YT doesn’t want show to wind down is because it provides people with a nice and natural place to stop watching which is nice. The race towards shorter, easier, more catchy and relentless content is a race to the bottom making everyone dumber. Watching…

It's not the algorithm here, it's viewer behavior

Re: On Mr. Beast and being alone in a circle for 100 days

#242

Post by throwaway12388 »

sumedh wrote: post #96
throwaway12388 wrote: post #11

I never watched his videos. Do yourself a flavour by blocking his and similar channels they all produce nothing but crap.

You should check it out sometime, the videos are entertaining and short.

haha..

you should try 5minute crafts and muskbot channels if you want to loose more brain cells

Re: On Mr. Beast and being alone in a circle for 100 days

#243

Post by Vt71fcAqt7 »

snowwrestler wrote: post #143
M4v3R wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because at the end of the day you need to obtain food, clothing, shelter and other necessities to even survive to the next day, not even mentioning doing anything for pleasure. Either through labor of your own, or by doing labor to earn money to buy these for you possibly your family. Thinking that "human beings are born worthy of a happy peaceful safe life" is childish - the world doesn't owe us anything, and if we…

It’s a challenging time in human history because we’re now capable of producing enough food, clothing, shelter, and other necessities for every human on Earth. That will only get more true as population growth slows while innovation continues to drive productivity improvements. But we’re still culturally in the mindset you’re describing: that we must each individually wrest life out of the wilderness day by day. As a…

>as population growth slows

This is only happening because more women are working. Guess what happens when all men and women are free all day long? It comes from the very essence of evolution that when the carrying capacity increases the population rises until it reaches the new one. Any "utopia" would revolve around sex as it is the principal object of human existence and reality.

Re: On Mr. Beast and being alone in a circle for 100 days

#244

Post by sweetheart »

namlem wrote: post #236
sweetheart wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The author wants to live in a world where everyone gets everything at no cost: that isn't even admiribale, it's childish. Why is it childish to want a life in which you don’t need to labor to have everything you need to be happy? It’s childish to think that human beings are born worthy of a happy peaceful safe life? Why do we need to earn those things? Are they not inherent within us?

Because if no one had to work, nothing would get done, and we would not have the abundance of food and goods that we do. All that stuff is made by the labor of others.

That's a logistical issue. The point of concern is that the person I was responding to said that merely wanting to live in a world where you are handed everything is childish. Why would wanting to be able to have access to everything you need for a happy life at 0 cost ever be childish?

We are all born worthy of a life free of struggle. If we can ever obtain that, we deserve it, regardless of how hard we worked for it. I don't understand this mindset of "you gotta _earn_ happiness/safety/security, etc."

Re: On Mr. Beast and being alone in a circle for 100 days

#245

Post by Applejinx »

tenpies wrote: post #58
bambax wrote: post #48

> How does Mr. Beast have the money to create these videos? He’s the fifth most subscribed to YouTube channel in the world. I had never heard of him or watched any of his videos. And now I have, and I'm afraid YT will recommend more. Not that I would ever watch one again except by accident, but still. I feel dirty. Also, about this: > t’s terrifying that a man spent one hundred days in a small circle in an empty fiel…

At this point he's quite likely the majority shareholder of a fast food empire, a chocolate bar company, and the owner of the Youtube channel. On top of that there is a layer of distribution deals and sub-channels (I mean there's even a Mr. Beast in Español channel). I suspect that early on much of it was carried on the back of personal and business debt, but once the fast food division took off it all made more sens…

I think it's extremely plausible that he dumps all his earnings back into furthering his empire. It's the Amazon model, but for a personality (Bezos profits off Amazon beating all its competitors at executing on being an online store, MrBeast profits off beating all his competitors at being a youtuber)

It's basically an endgame for capitalism. When you lower the friction of engagement and globalize everything so it becomes possible to try and be the winner of 'the market' as in the WORLD, there will be people in control who insist on being THE winner even if it costs them.

It makes perfect sense that MrBeast dumps all his money back into YouTube attention, and it makes perfect sense that he conducts money give-aways to immunize himself against criticism, and everything that he makes (and re-gives) also makes YouTube money, so they are deeply invested in aligning with him and his approach.

He is not ABOUT bringing a return on his investments (or indeed, fairly paying or treating his own employees). He is about beating the market, about winning, and anything else is disposable externalities. He paid off his mom's house when it became trivial for him to do so.

When he dies, it all collapses. He's not building anything except that he's cementing YouTube dominance.

Re: On Mr. Beast and being alone in a circle for 100 days

#246

Post by sweetheart »

flerchin wrote: post #141
sweetheart wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The author wants to live in a world where everyone gets everything at no cost: that isn't even admiribale, it's childish. Why is it childish to want a life in which you don’t need to labor to have everything you need to be happy? It’s childish to think that human beings are born worthy of a happy peaceful safe life? Why do we need to earn those things? Are they not inherent within us?

The folks working on farms, few though they are in the modern world, deserve compensation. What will the people not working on the farm do to deserve the fruits of their labor? Whatever it will be, will be work. Same for the folks building houses, and all the rest of modern infrastructure that we depend upon to live.

> do to deserve the fruits of their labor

This is the issue. No one needs to do anything to deserve access to food, shelter, clothing, etc.

I think you're framing it something like lazy people vs. people who work hard, which I don't think we need to do. If we ever lived in world where we could all access unlimited food, shelter, etc. then do you think people would still have to do stuff to actually "earn" access to it? Why or why not?

The issue I had in my original comment was that the OP suggested merely _wanting_ to live in that world, where we are all handed the ingredients for a happy life at 0 cost, is childish. I can't fathom thinking that someone wanting to live a happy life without needing to toil is _childish_

Re: On Mr. Beast and being alone in a circle for 100 days

#247

Post by edanm »

sweetheart wrote: post #103
Vt71fcAqt7 wrote: post #66

>Their strict standards resulted in content that was homogeneous and boring, but safe. It’s terrifying that a man spent one hundred days in a small circle in an empty field. This isn't terrifying. People do much worse for 100x less. Prostitution and porn, for example, many times drive people to suicide. People stay on ships for months at a time without seeing their family, not too long ago, sailors would go years on…

> The author wants to live in a world where everyone gets everything at no cost: that isn't even admiribale, it's childish. Why is it childish to want a life in which you don’t need to labor to have everything you need to be happy? It’s childish to think that human beings are born worthy of a happy peaceful safe life? Why do we need to earn those things? Are they not inherent within us?

You're mixing two different things. I agree with you - if we could live in a world where we didn't have to work, that's great! That's the desired outcome IMO.

But you also ask:

> Why do we need to earn those things? Are they not inherent within us?

And if I'm understanding correctly, the reason we need to earn these things is because right now, we're not living in a world in which we can stop working. The world doesn't just hand us what we need without toil, unfortunately.

Re: On Mr. Beast and being alone in a circle for 100 days

#248

Post by Vt71fcAqt7 »

sweetheart wrote: post #246
flerchin wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The folks working on farms, few though they are in the modern world, deserve compensation. What will the people not working on the farm do to deserve the fruits of their labor? Whatever it will be, will be work. Same for the folks building houses, and all the rest of modern infrastructure that we depend upon to live.

> do to deserve the fruits of their labor This is the issue. No one needs to do anything to deserve access to food, shelter, clothing, etc. I think you're framing it something like lazy people vs. people who work hard, which I don't think we need to do. If we ever lived in world where we could all access unlimited food, shelter, etc. then do you think people would still have to do stuff to actually "earn" access to i…

It is childish to want to fly to America from Europe in 1700 and get upset that it is not possible. That is what I meant: "want" as a present demand, as seen in some dictionaries.[1] I should have been more clear about this as it seems to have become the point of contention. But see my later point about the carying capacity for why this is an unreasonable future want as well.

[1]https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/want

Re: On Mr. Beast and being alone in a circle for 100 days

#249

Post by prepend »

gjulianm wrote: post #168
prepend wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> People enter those challenges fully knowing how they're going to go. People who have financial need aren’t able to clearly decline and have agency over their decision. Asking someone who supports a family if they will degrade themselves for $500k if not really a fair question and people will say yes. It’s like saying that people who blow their boss do it knowing fully well what they’re getting into. There is a powe…

> People who have financial need aren’t able to clearly decline and have agency over their decision. Asking someone who supports a family if they will degrade themselves for $500k if not really a fair question and people will say yes. Except that this isn't targeting people who have financial need. At the prices we're talking about, quite a lot of people will find it a good deal. And "degrading" might be a strong wor…

> Except that this isn't targeting people who have financial need.

I don’t think it’s fair to say that. The person who “won” the chance has two young kids and a spouse. I’m fairly sure he really needs $500k. If he’s like a typical person he has student loans, bills and lots of debt.

It would be kind of perverse to have someone compete who didn’t really need the money.

If you ask a random human to degrade themself for $500k there’s a power imbalance as most people don’t lead a zen existence where that’s not a life changing amount of money.

Re: On Mr. Beast and being alone in a circle for 100 days

#250

Post by prepend »

hombre_fatal wrote: post #159
prepend wrote: post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If it is just in terms of what he gets from youtube and not advertising then it is easier to imagine. Well this is an odd way to measure profitable. What’s the benefit to this method? Imagine if Google said “we lose money on every search run. Unless you count the advertising, then we make billions. But we lose money on most of our activities.” This just seems naively stupid. Because “most videos” is a dumb metric.…

He’s obviously saying that the views he gets from some video doesn’t always pull in the money it took to create that video which is mostly a point of how much he invests into zany sets, huge giveaways, and such.

But based on the view count and the published YouTube payout rate it’s clear that he’s making bucketloads of money. It’s not pertinent if some of his videos don’t immediately break even.

He’s making lots of money from YouTube views alone. Not to mention other markets, sponsorships, etc.

Post reply on HN