@thenthenthen Spotify doesn’t, its founder who has now moved on is investing.

Wow, this is amazing! Great work!

Yes? It’s all true. It can be good in one axis and bad in another axis.

Why is losing the ability/interest in navigating through a paper map by hand bad, though?

Humanity has adopted and then discarded skills many times in its history. There were once many master archers, nobody outside of one crazy Danish guy has mastered archery for hundreds of years. That isn't bad, nobody cares, nothing of value was lost.

What we call knowledge work is a bit different to archery though.

Writing for example is proven to be better done by hand with a pen and paper, people who take typed notes don’t retain as much.

AI has accelerated the most simple and obvious answers to easy questions.

For more difficult things deep thinking and writing, partly with pen and paper notes and diagrams are still the most effective tools.

You can still use pencil and paper for the difficult things. In fact, you'll have more time for doing so, because you don't have to use pencil and paper for the simple things.

Its not just cookies. If you tell an LG TV that you live in Europe it will ask you if you want to turn of these “intelligent features“(ACR)

You could try getting an European TV, at least then it will ask and you can say no.

This burden is on politicians. If you can extract enough value from tourism you both lessen the tourism and get people more happy about tourists.

The monetary value has to match the damage it does to have people caring less about the “environment” they are in (gossip puts pressure on people to behave, just like renting puts less pressure on people to take care of their apartment).

You could argue that the point of creating an oligopoly and then squeezing customers after the fact also is adding friction. All value creation is not great for the people. But it is hidden under the name. Financial engineering and rent-seeking are getting quite advanced nowadays, because of the political class.

I like the idea of classifying it into four buckets: those that are below tax net gains for a country, those who are above and those that are above the tax net gains using just their wealth, and then the government.

I did something similar in markdown as the author, but my solution was to generate an unique anchor with a unicode symbol after each answer.

Kind of wish I had an SSH frontend though.

I do not agree with the articles framing but TV, books and friends can be shared, a social media feed isn’t.

In fact, I would guess the strongest relationships are those where those are shared.

I'm pretty sure GP was being sarcastic. These things are very obviously not the same. You give one example, but another is algorithmic engagement - this has been most extensively studied in kids and teens but it affects everyone.

I made this point elsewhere in thread, but another difference is the daily content aspect of online influencers. Instead of reading one or two shallow, vapid articles a month about "what's wrong with your relationship" they are seeing new content every day, and they are mostly seeing the content that is upsetting the most people.

Then no lobbying against the politicians would be needed to be done.

It’s easy to reduce it to party lines, but that kind of thinking is just wrong. Details matters.

Is there a word for reducing it to something abstract and then attacking the abstraction, even though it is leaky?