I think usually a question about what you like does not call for an answer “I like X because it costs less”—that’s more of an economical preference. Either way, keep in mind that this lower cost for you in the moment, monetarily is in large part due to most governments presumably subsidising oil and due to negative environmental externalities both from plastic pollution and other uses of oil.
(I’m sure, like with any question, there will be many vocal commenters chiming in saying how they like plastic. All I can say, lucky you, and I am yet to meet any of you IRL!)
Back in the day, my father worked as a researcher for a large, old dairy company. He was tasked with finding out what was environmentally friendly for packaging milk; whether they should start offering milk in washable glass bottles instead of their current cartons, for environmental reasons.
He found that the environmental impact created by the washing of the glass bottles was worse than the impact of the entire production and disposal cycle for the cartons. If you added in the production of the glass, the recycling of glass when it broke, and the extra impact from transport (less space due to not being able to pack as well, heavier) there was no competition at all - glass was way, way worse.
Plastic was a bit better than glass, and carton was the best available option. So they stayed with carton.
This was ~30 years ago, mind, so the equation may have changed. But I still find it important to check before deciding "Let's go glass" is the right option.
Yes, but we aren't going back to this anyway. Also ; it's not only about drinks; everything comes packaged in plastic in supermarket. Now more reusable bags and paper bags are used over here, but you fill them with plastic nonetheless. It seems hard to believe that me being able to throw everything in the yard and it being gone vs throwing away bags of plastic is worse. And need to take into account that plastic recycling isn't great to begin with.
But agreed: all factors have to be taken into account. Maybe there are better plastics that are reusable easier and faster.
I think that may be an exaggeration. Xenoestrogens like BPA are shown to be hormonal disruptors, there were some studies allegedly showing that people with IBD have more microplastic in their poop, etc., but it is difficult to exactly assess the impact from it accumulating in bodies.
Some plastics do meet the definition of literal poison, but those used in bottles do not seem to, and BPA is at worst supposedly to be classified as “substance of very high concern”. Can’t believe that I would write the above as good news, but there we go.
Flame retardants from TVs ending up in recycled plastic being used for food storage, etc, etc.
It's a jungle out there and if not unregulated, then very much un-policed. PFAS was seen as completely benign for decades, turns it isn't and that is bio-accumulates.
Specific chemicals like BPA being banned in certain applications, only to be replaced by some other, very similar chemical, which then legislators play whack-a-mole with (or whack-a-sloth) very slowly, over decades.
Plus imports from China. (And some other countries, but hey, China has the volume. Shouldn't they care even just a little themselves too?)
Heck, toys from there still sometimes contain lead, which should really not be a thing in this day and age, but the fact that it sometimes still happen should indicate how little the producers and importers know or care.
> A huge company is using unpaid artist's labour to create tools that will reduce the potential for these and all future artists to get any paid work at all in the future.
"Will" is a strong claim. If the Jevons Paradox (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jevons_paradox) applies in this case - and it may well do so - the new technology will lower costs, and the increased productivity will increase demand. If so, it will require artists to work in a different way but they'll earn more.
Tbh a lot of art people want money for is garbage, and most money goes to a few corporations anyways.
It would be nice to see that system rearranged. Even if there’s more art, money could instead fund artistic ventures people actually want rather than keeping powerful entities afloat/entrenched.
Maybe the number of major corporations decreases (towards a permanent handful) as the number of paid artists increases (towards basically everyone who could desire payment for art that’s actually in demand).
A system being rearranged is tempting, and yes, a very likely outcome. Hollywood depends on its advantage in production values, which is quickly being eroded by AI.
However, if recent history is a guide, we won't see an increase in the number of paid artists, I'd say looking at the music industry, what we saw was the increase in the number of artists in general, but success seems to me as fickle as ever. Now, apparently, thanks to Ticketmaster monopoly, even live tours barely make any money and musicians are turning to Onlyfans (not porn, just direct support) to make money.
So here's the state of the music industry (partially due to unchallenged monopolies):
You, for the most part, don't make money making music and distributing it online
You don't make money from a live tour either.
Amazing outcome for an industry where the cost of production and distribution has collapsed. No one makes money except for the monopolies in streaming (Spotify) and ticketing (Ticketmaster).
Without monopoly protections, that's what you get. Thankfully, there's a bit more competition in the audiovisual realm with Youtube and multiple streamers. Still, I don't know what to think about what might happen.
Most artists / people in audiovisual production will likely make less money. Some will likely make a lot of money. My (kind of unfounded atm) assumption is that AI will just increase the differences in Paretto distribution of income, making the top 20% very rich and the bottom 80% very poor. Before genAI, you had a very large and vibrant VFX industry, with relatively well paid workers, which is likely to be cut down by huge numbers (it's already been cut by around 50%).
> Audiovisual entertainment is already beyond capacity. We make more stuff than people have the time to consume it.
No we don't. I rarely find anything that I like in Netflix, Amazon Prime or HBO. Those services are stuffed with brain bleach that I don't even find entertaining. There are "gold nuggets"[^1] I have enjoyed in those sites, but it's like one or two per year. The rest of my watching time goes to videos of people camping in the wilderness, for lack of a better thing.
[^1]: As in, they are entertaining. Rarely, they are imaginative. Even more seldom, they are educational or contribute to my personal growth.
You don’t get it. Those programs are made because they make money. Netflix is profitable because it makes shows that X number of people want to see.
The number of people like yourself who are underserved by stuff to watch is too low to be profitable - or they don’t know how to make a show that would appeal to this group yet.
The dark truth about TV is that it’s what people want to watch. There is no conspiracy. Here is a good Steve Jobs quote on the subject:
“ When you’re young, you look at television and think, There’s a
conspiracy. The networks have conspired to dumb us down. But
when you get a little older, you realize that’s not true. The networks
are in business to give people exactly what they want. That’s a far
more depressing thought. Conspiracy is optimistic! You can shoot
the bastards! We can have a revolution! But the networks are really
in business to give people what they want. It’s the truth.”
Anyway assuming that an industry screwed up because you personally don’t like their product is pretty incredible. No they didnt screw up. They’re just serving people who aren’t quite like yourself.
And? Two things can be true at the same time. Deadpool Wolverine was 300 million USD to produce. Nobody is going to put that amount of money into producing content for a corner wacko like myself, or Steve Jobs, whom, by your quote, apparently had the same problem (and 300 million USD to spare). But if it can be produced at a fraction of the price, then there is a market. And that's exactly my point.
* Slow, thoughtful, hard sci-fi that's well-written and well acted, with immersive (not campy) sets and effects. Enough of that to fill an evening a week.
* A spiritual successor to Firefly with the same production requirements and release schedule described above.
Even YouTube is bound by the same limitations as the AAA streaming platforms are—you can't sink money into something that's too niche, and right now doing things well costs buckets of money. So I'm sure there are a few fan films on YouTube adjacent to my interests, but their production value is going to be far below what it could be if things were made cheaper.
While I've not played with k8, I did run stuff in Google's Borg for a very long while, and that has a similar architecture. My team was petabyte scale and we were far from the team with the largest footprint. So it is clearly possible to handle large scale data in this type of architecture.
> So, this is just number rearranging. The public pays either way.
"The public" isn't one person. Denmark has progressive taxes; getting rid of subsidies so prices of food increases changes who among the public pays.
> Or do you just want to ignore this externality until we pay it all at once?
> So, this is just number rearranging. The public pays either way.
"The public" isn't one person. Denmark has progressive taxes; getting rid of subsidies so prices of food increases changes who among the public pays.
> Or do you just want to ignore this externality until we pay it all at once?
I'm in favor of the carbon tax. I also think that it has complicated side effects and we should try to understand those effects, and see if we need to change something else to compensate for them.
> programs are written much less frequently than they are run, so surely developer keystrokes are laughably unimportant compared to runtime performance and other user-facing concerns.
Taking this to its logical conclusion all programs should be written in assembly.
The reality is that there's a tradeoff: Programmer time vs performance, and which parts of performance matter. I've worked using anything with performance from assembly to shell scripts (including C, C++ and Java). It is all tradeoffs. Do users want more features, or more speed? Are we running at a scale or situation where ultimate usage of hardware matters, or not?
Saying we should do ultimate amounts of investment in performance when there's three users and one programmer doesn't make sense. They'd typically rather have more features and adequate performance.
If we can, and it works out to less harm vs benefit than otherwise: Yes. But it turns out we can't for alcohol and cigarettes (except regulation). We fairly much can for workaholics - Norway has laws that stop working overtime except in certain situations, and they actually work fairly well. I don't know if we can for social media, though I see California is trying to stop some of the addictive forms of social media.
There's at least one bit that's missing here, even if the claim is entirely accurate:
Both the total pie and the total number of creators has increased. Hollywood feature film production is [estimated](hhttps://www.quora.com/How-many-people-work-in-the-film-indus...) to be 3000-7000 people. There are [approximately 61.1 *million* YouTube creators](https://explodingtopics.com/blog/youtube-creator-stats), or approximately 10,000 times more. There could easily be 100x more money flowing to the total visual entertainment creator community and the old guard film creators could still get less than they used to.
I don't know exactly what to search for to get similar numbers for music production, but I suspect it is similar: There's a lot more creators and they get less each even though it's more in total, and this is especially hitting "old timers" that used to get the bulk of the old total and get less with the new setup.
