First of all, as others have already pointed, the premises of the opinion are very flawed. Spotify is profitable and the big earners are the labels.

Second of all, I'm all for artists owning their own music and receiving better payment for that. And although I'm a heavy Spotify user, I really don't care if it explodes tomorrow.

But, what I would definitely NOT want is fragmentation, just like we had with TV and movie industry. I don't want every other label launching it's own platform and creating silos so I end having to pay even more to them if I want to listen any music. Same goes for the individual artists: I don't want to have to use a different app or website to search and listen each one of them.

What I would gladly accept? Some kind of platform/aggregator where I can find artists, listen their music and pay directly to them. They can be free to choose their pricing and the way they charge. A small fee for every play? A larger sum for indefinite use? Maybe a price for a whole album? They can even offer some musics free as a sample.

I think something like that can be fair for artists and fans.

Oooh! I'll take the bet:

No UNDISPUTABLE AND DEFINITIVE PROOF of intelligent alien life will emerge in the next 12 months.

How much you're willing to bet?

That is exactly the point I wanted to get. Try and convince US companies and people to adopt a system like that without them screaming "BUT COMMUNISM!" in terror!

I wonder where does the money for the insurance and retraining comes. Hmmm...

I too had adhesive capsulitis in both shoulders, one right after the other. One of them took more than 2 years to stop hurting, and the healing is so slow that I really can't say when it occurred. I just vaguely remember putting some clothes one day and suddenly noticing "hey! my shoulder doesn't hurt anymore."

An idea would be to lawmakers passing laws (yeah, I know!) requiring big tech to pay for all of the energy generation and (most of the) infrastructure, effectively making energy free for all residential consumers in the US.

It would of course need some thought, adjustments and compromises, but I think it's doable.

Well, I clicked the link and, to no one's surprise, the 8 million figure you provided is simply a lie.

The only mention of that number is when the article talks about "encounters".

And what is an "encounter"?

A migrant encounter is a U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) term for any interaction between immigration officials and noncitizens who are either apprehended while crossing the border illegally (Border Patrol) or determined to be inadmissible at a port of entry (Office of Field Operations). These encounters, which include both apprehensions and expulsions, are recorded as events rather than unique individuals.

I get what you're saying. I guess a good analogy would be atomic energy.

It's incredibly useful, not only for electricity generation, but also fields like medicine which greatly benefited from it. Unless someone decides to destroy humanity with it.

I think AI has immense potential. But if it comes at the cost of completely eroding human society, what's the point?

I have been saying this for some time, now. The fake news/scams epidemic is only punctually about deceiving people. But the broader goal is to actually make people don't believe in anything anymore. So, only "the leader" can be "trusted".

We have this in South America for a looong time. I would estimate some 80% of households use these boxes.

It became so widespread that the major streaming platforms started to pressure the governments. Most of the devices were outlawed and recently there were huge cross-border crackdowns that took the pirat... ahem, alternative platforms down.

One very funny thing is that because it was a paid service, most people didn't even realized it was illegal. When the boxes started to get bricked, consumer protection organizations got flooded with millions of complaints. There are reports of people that even reported it to the police.

My guesses:

1) Unix-based, non-Windows OS
Yeah, of course you could also set up a Linux machine, but just buying a Mac is much easier.

2) Small form factor and nice product design
It occupies very little space on your desk and doesn't look ugly.

3) Established ecosystem
Many of these users already use Apple devices, so the Mini nicely integrates with them.

4) Relatively low price
It's not cheap, but not prohibitive.

5) Trendy
They're following the trend.

The link provided is from a camera that doesn't work. You can watch it from Iceland here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

Having spent most of my life in B2B e-commerce, this topic really resonates with me.

I've always wanted modular and composable ERPs. It's the kind of flexibility that's essential, since each product has different characteristics.

But the biggest problem I've faced almost my entire life is dealing with CEOs, CFOs, and other C-level executives who swear up and down that their companies are unique and special, different from all the others.

How many hours of meetings I spent trying to convince them that, no, their company isn't that special. If you're going to hire an ERP, accept and adopt its damn methodology! Not the other way around. Don't try to bend it to fit your idiosyncratic, convoluted processes.

Even so, I've lost count of how much time and money I've seen wasted on projects that ended up poorly implemented, if not completely failed.

Thankfully, I'm retired and will never have to worry about this again.

I think it's reasonable to estimate it by peak load. You simply can't count on higher figures knowing you'll eventually and certainly fall short.

Otherwise, if you say you could provide energy to millions of homes, what would you do when it's peak season and more than half of them suddenly lose power?

P.S.:

1) Maybe the statement of 660,000 homes is already considering and deducting commercial and industrial use.
2) One solution would be of course to say "at least 660,000 homes" or "from 660,000 up to 1.7 million homes".

Before you dismiss this study, pay attention that it is very basic science trying to access specifically the effect of screen time on kids.

No, it didn't say that social media is harmless or it doesn't affect children. It only inferred that screen time alone doesn't. As with any basic science study, more research is needed to try and understand the subject in full.