August 1994, Madison WI, near West side close to the UW campus around University Ave, I found one of these sitting on the curb. Beige, a little stained, but completely intact.
I was staying nearby in a sublet room, basically homeless, but i'd gotten a temp job cleaning out nasty dormatories which gave me a tiny cash flow.
I already had experience with various 286/386 PCs, PS/2s and consumer all-in-ones like the TRS-80s, COCO2 and Commodore 64 so I lugged this lead anchor back to my room and plugged it in. It booted up and presented me with a Unix log-in prompt. I tried every "default" password I could think of, but none worked. I didn't know this Unix so I had no tricks to try that I didn't faintly remember from reading Cult of the Dead Cow newsletters.
I put it aside. When I tried turning it on later, it never booted up again.
I probably should have tried selling it on Usenet forsale groups but I may have been without any computer and living offline at that time.
Sublet came to an end, and I had to move on. It was too much to take with me on foot.
I did salvage the hard drive and I'm pretty sure I used it for something eventually. And the two cooling fans which were loud and powerful and still insufficient to keep that monster cool. They were proportioned just like ordinary fans except they were extra deep. Not server fans, though. I used these in projects for years afterward. The early Motorola 68010 CPU is still in my parts collection. The husk of the computer went into a dumpster so noone would see my desecration.
Something can be 'technically superior' but still not the 'best' solution, because 'solution' includes a lot of factors beyond 'technological superiority.'
100%. If the superior solution always won, Microsoft Windows would have been relegated to the dustbin long before Windows 95 existed (and we wouldn't be dealing with the disaster pile that is Windows 11 today). Similarly if the superior solution always won we'd have high speed rail in the US connecting all our major cities, but that hasn't happened either.
'solution' includes a lot of factors beyond 'technological superiority.'
Including whose wheels you're willing to grease to get your inferior solution a leg up on the ones that are better.
In other words, we are toast. Sad because AP was once one of the original newspapers/sites with journalists rather than editorialists but that ship has sailed for most if not all of those outfits. It's hard keeping up with the Kardashians/Jones, whatever.
You're missing the point of the AP, and it's actual composition. I worked at a daily newspaper most of my way through undergrad and knew the ins and outs of the AP better than most.
The main use of the AP was to get international news to outlets who couldn't afford to place staff in places further away from their own location. A great example is any international war, though even big national events (9/11 being a great example) are also places where AP stories are valuable.
The AP carries very little editorial content. Yes there are a few editorial writers who publish there but the volume from them is minimal compared to the objective news reporting. Some people like to claim otherwise but that is from those who aren't actually looking at the body of work on ap.org.
Unfortunately the newspaper model is indeed dying. Many of us are lamenting it and we're not sure what solution could bring it back. Printed news was supported by advertising, both display ads and classified ads. In the 90s your local daily paper likely had 4-8 pages of classified ads, every day. Now the majority of that is on craigslist or facebook. On Sundays your paper had full color printed advertising inserts from over a dozen retailers; many of those retails have since gone out of business and many of the ones who remain don't advertise that way anymore. Online subscriptions can offset a small part of this, but only a small part. Online advertisements are blocked by most readers' browsers, so that isn't productive for newspapers in many cases either.
The tabloid and editorial "journalism" you refer to is successful because it does a better job of selling crap to its audience. Don't confuse it with the professionals at the AP.
Yeah. I wish that were true. Trump was elected by a majority. And his current support numbers are still around 38%.
A couple things to consider on that:
I would much rather go nearly anywhere in Europe.
If we were to go back to the topic of the IgNobels themselves it would be interesting to know how many people actually traveled internationally the last several years to attend in person. I've read about them regularly but never considered going in person; I'm not sure I even knew before reading this that they were previously hosted in the US.
Honestly, arena rock is practically a dead genre already.
That might depend on how widely we define "arena rock". Yeah there aren't a lot of "rock" acts - by the traditional definition - that are selling out huge stadiums but there are plenty of other acts that are. Between various pop princesses, nostalgic rockers from the past, comedians, and even politicians we have plenty of non-sporting events selling out the hockey, basketball, baseball, and football arenas.
That said, while the tours pay the artists better than media / streaming revenue - and by a huge margin - the artists get but a small fraction of the ticket price. Prices keep going up, and at some point the fans won't pay it. Ticketmaster doesn't seem to have a plan for this, they seem to exist in an alternative reality where all fans have unlimited funds to see their favorite artists.
"An entire fraternity of strapping Wall-Street-bound youth. Hell - this is going to be a blood bath!" -- Post Bros. Comics