What can you do?
What should you do. That's the question.
The answer being: focus on making your product good, helpful, productive, correct, and if you succeed at those things, resulting in profit... great! Focusing on engagement is a problem, no matter what the product is.
Maybe, but these figures already basically match my evaluation of the situation.
The figures can be entirely correct and still the answer can be "no". Why? Because Android might use the Linux kernel, but it isn't really a Linux distro in any meaningful sense of the word. And Steam Deck and Chromebooks *can* have some reasonable facsimile of a Linux development environment, but I'd expect maybe 0.1% of users to actually turn it on.
So most of those folks are Linux "users" in much the same way that TiVo owners were linux "users", i.e. they are using a device that deep down, at a level that the user is unaware of, runs some small subset of what a Linux distro typically contains, with a bunch of stuff on top that they mostly aren't in control over.
It's like calling Mac users UNIX users. It's technically correct — the best kind of correct — but grossly misleading.
I highly doubt that. Is this post just an advert for world of tanks?
This story is an advert for an entertaining 6-minute thing with Benedict Cumberbatch in it. Going in, I was dimly aware that World of Tanks is (probably) a video game. Coming out, I have experienced 6 minutes of amusement and am... dimly aware that World of Tanks is (probably) a video game.
I have no urge or compulsion to learn anything about World of Tanks or - assuming it is a video game - play it.
The video with Benedict Cumberbatch is the perfect advertisement: an interesting but failed one. It is a good watch, if you like the actor, whimsy, and have the slightest bit of self-control.
He's probably like one of those people who knows that Africa has been fucked over by other nations as long as there have been other nations to fuck them over. Everyone's had a turn abusing Africa.
Linux fans will obviously downvote me to hell, but I'm OK with tribalism and zealotry because this post contains nothing but facts.
Your first full paragraph is 100% opinion. Run along now.
I have an example elsewhere in this thread explaining that consumers have limited dollars and foreign mega-streamers exert pressure on local industry that is not proportionate.
It's a very weak argument. If they really like the local content better, they'll simply opt for that instead of Disney, especially if it's a lower price.
And yet, it doesn't work that way. The argument is - in fact - sound, because it has decades of ground under its feet. This is not new. It is merely new to AU.
I personally dislike Disney. Not because of the whole woke thing, or the vastly overused multiverse trope (and not even in a fun way like Rick and Morty.)
Rather, I never really cared for superhero franchises, except the Christopher Nolan Batman series, the original two Tim Burton Batman movies with Michael Keaton, and the first two IronMan movies (haven't yet seen the third.) The idea that superman can just defy physics at will and bounce off of literally nothing, or that a massive dose of gamma radiation turns a man into a green giant instead of simply killing him is a bit too far fetched for me. Sure, Batman and Ironman take extreme liberties with it, but at least those guys rely on technology that is in some way plausible rather than supernatural crap.
I also never particularly cared for Star Wars. I've always been more of a trekkie, and I basically see the whole series the same way that Harrison Ford does.
Outside those two, what the fuck does Disney have to offer aside from ruining copyright laws in America in their own image? Well...basically nothing, unless you like musicals. Their current biggest franchise that they didn't simply buy off from somebody else (Frozen) is literally, a fucking musical. Characters randomly breaking out into a song is what I loathed the most about Disney movies as a kid, and that's like the entire movie. They even openly took a massive shit on their classics like Snow White (which I never really cared for, either old or new) that their own fans adored. Even as a kid, I never particularly cared for Disney's live action movies, and that's what they're favoring the most. I honestly can't see why anybody would subscribe to Disney+. Even their theme parks are shit now -- who the fuck wants to stand in line for an hour, all for a ride that lasts all of 5 minutes? Oh, you want fastpass? That's another $200, and it still has all the same limitations that the free one used to have, except you wait even longer now. Disneyland will certainly take you for a ride alright.
That's quite the wall of text talking about what you like and don't like. Insight: the other eight billion-ish consumers on the planet are not you.
The bar that this local content has to reach to exceed Disney+ is honestly quite low, and you're thinking Disney can simply spend its way to the top? Yeah...not buying it.
You are incorrect. The bar is very high. Which is why the streaming leaders (such as Disney+) are dominant. And yes, advertising budget is huge. Not necessarily the most important factor, but it's gargantuan.
It's easy to have unique keys in your spreadsheet so that you can easily relate information on different sheets to one another. The problem is, actually doing the processing that a SQL server would do trivially is irritating, and then it will be processed slowly every time. Whatever Excel does or doesn't cache, it isn't enough. You can do big complicated things, but they work slowly, and maintaining it is irritating at best. When you do complicated things either your formulas get long, or you wind up having to write code, or in fact often it's both. At that point you're way better off IMO doing it in something else so that at least performance is good when you're done, and you never have to screw with editing a long formula.
But, is 2e7 cells really that many? If I spent 5 minutes brainstorming I could probably think of 20 pieces of metadata you'd want in columns of a spreadsheet tracking financial transactions
That's exactly why it should be in a database and not a spreadsheet. Spreadsheets are best when you have a reasonably limited number of columns. It's also a horrible PITA to use them as a relational database (it's more or less possible, but you don't want to do it) so hiding pieces of that complexity in other sheets in order to limit the data the user interfaces with on the main sheet is just a lot of extra work you wouldn't have to do if you used another solution.
I'm mostly surprised that Google Sheets chokes on what feels like a fairly small amount of data. My best guess is that it's some insane formulas that it struggles with more than the number of cells.
It doesn't really matter where it fails, if Excel can do it and Sheets can't then Google has to admit inferiority to Microsoft which is never a good look.
If what you say is true, then why is a cultural trade war necessary instead of letting this stuff simply succeed on its own merit?
https://youtube.com/watch?v=NX...
The cold war is over.
I have an example elsewhere in this thread explaining that consumers have limited dollars and foreign mega-streamers exert pressure on local industry that is not proportionate. The lure of big-ticket franchises and heavily-advertised water-cooler-topic shows influences spending. This isn't a trade war or a culture war. It's enabling customers to be able to get what they want.
So you're saying it would be ideal if Disney was forced to push streamers specializing in local content out of business and become a local monopoly?
Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying. Which is why I said it.
Oh. Wait. I didn't.
In your hypothetical, lots of families can in fact afford the $23/m, so Stan would still get a lot of business.
In your proposal they're mostly redundant.
In my hypothetical situation, zero families can afford $23/mo. It's stated in the definition of the scenario.
Now, I could have written a wall of text that nobody would've read. I could've gotten into the differences between show producers and show distributors. I could've explained how it can actually be beneficial for a show producer (Stan! for instance) to get money from anywhere to do what they do and not have to worry about distribution. I could've explained how this model has been a thing in Canada for decades. I could've explained that the regional industry welcomes this and wants it, and why. Much of that would've required more research on my part, and would've been ancillary to the topic.
Suffice it to say that the scenario wherein an Internet rando posts anything along the lines of "this is a stupid idea" is incorrect.
When in the last two centuries have the French, or the British, or the Germans, or the Belgians, or the Italians moved in a way to unify that continent to stand up to this kind of genocide?
Biden went around congress to fund a different genocide. Pretty words, but living up to them is another matter.
Schitts Creek and Kims Convienence were both really good.
Lesser-known stuff too. Obviously Letterkenny has some international awareness, but for instance my wife and I have found Late Bloomer to be interestingly funny and illuminating.
> Haha only... there's a healthy-sized Australian TV industry with some very good shows. Then why do they have to force non-Australian companies to produce shows if there's a healthy Australian tv-industy? Is this one of those "Australia has an army!" things?
Imagine a family has $20/mo to spend on streaming content.
Imagine Disney+ has the billion shows you already know about; Star Wars, Marvel, all the princess things.
Imagine Stan! has a decent selection of Australian content. Obviously not Disney's massive library worth, but a reasonable library.
Now imagine Disney+ wants $15/mo and Stan! wants $8.
Finally, imagine you've got kids. You can't afford both. You have to pick one or the other service.
You've got to pick Disney, right? Even though Stan! has a bunch of content that stars people like you, in places like yours, written by people who think like you and understand your regional sensibility. Because not having the giants cuts you off from so much "must see" content you've kind of got to pick them.
Wouldn't it be nice if Disney+ was mandated that they had to pick up and license some of that local content? So you can get at least some of that stuff you crave. And as a bonus, people in other countries may get to see it - and like it - too.
Personally I'd just make a few hours of AI generated aboriginals spouting hate speech at the Australian government as a middle finger for each day.
And this is why a} you're modded a troll and b} your mother put you up for adoption but there were no takers. But seriously, stereotypes from the outside just demonstrate why local content is important; outsiders don't often "get it".
My wife and I just finished watching the Australian version of Ghosts and it was great.
Wait, what? I totally missed that. My wife and I started with Ghosts (the original, UK version), and have been watching the US version as it comes out. But an AU version? Neat!
Thank you.
The UNIX philosophy basically involves giving you enough rope to hang yourself. And then a couple of feet more, just to be sure.
