We live in such a capitalistic world by now, that most people’s happiness is, if they want it or not, tied to money. And I think society is moving further towards this.
Having kids would be a large financial burden and given my projection, would mean I wouldn’t be able to guarantee a decent living and the mental stability, because kids are brutal and societal pressures are very hard to free yourself from.
I grew up very poor and only very recently I was able to get out of debt i racked up just to survive (and sheer ignorance/living above my means, because I had nothing to lose and no perspective). I would hate myself of putting a child in that position myself.
If money wouldn’t be such a dominant force in current society, I’d very much consider having children.
>We live in such a capitalistic world by now, that most people’s happiness is, if they want it or not, tied to money.
This is how people feel, but that feeling has to be wrong. We know from history that people lived with much less and they were much more mentally stable than we are today. To be fair, if everyone is poor, it's probably very different than just you being poor in a rich society.
social media means people have realized how poor they are relatively. otherwise we are not in a substantially more capitalist world in the west and people are only more affluent than in the past.
obviously social media cannot explain everything about fertility, but i suspect it explains a significant portion of modern economic discontent among the professional/middle+ classes
I tend to disagree, I think a lot more in our society has changed due to the commodification of basically everything combined with the capitalist tendencies to pervert and corrupt anything, as there is no limit to greed. I think the housing market, food pricing and many more aspects of live have started to outpace the average workers wage to a point where it’s hard to be optimistic about a brighter future. The dream of ownership, a car, a family has gotten significantly more expensive in relation to incomes. At least from the POV of an European
I think the author was a bit confused on what „do social media“ means. This, like any other promotional marketing channel, lives based on building an audience that comes for that value OR is genuinely interested in your content.
Just creating some random videos about god knows what without any overarching context or value (entertainment) provided, leaves the audience clueless about what this channel means.
It’s like your uncle uploading random videos without any sort of narrative and each video being completely random.
Doing „social media“ probably means to either build a following by providing content that involves book or are around the topic books, that regardless of interest in the current book in question, will make the audience come back because they are getting some kind of value and/or entertainment.
Posting videos about a book and then next about a husband walking the dog does not really spark an interest to come back for more (unless I am personally interested to support a particular creator (which these followers also did)).
Unfortunately just trying to build a social media presence to promote a book is naive. The advice to „do social media“ is too broad. But social media IS a powerful channel to reach audiences, just not without either already owning a channel that covers the subject matter on a regular basis to attract the audience or without the willingness to spend money. Placing advertisements or striking deals with book related channels would probably be more effective.
Because browsers don’t just browse these days, they do all the heavy lifting and not just for the nerds like us, but actually make it accessible to the normies. They do all the compliance work to all the standards too. There is no standards of sending something to space yet.
I do so much in my browser these days, things I had to have 15 applications for back in the ie days.
You still have 15 applications, it's just that now they appear as tabs in your browser - which is actually a virtual machine in disguise.
I see the news in the front page of HN: Edge, Firefox, Ladybird. The problems with privacy, funding, etc. will remain as long as one refuses to do an "AT&T" on the Web, that is delegate the non-essential browser functions (text, image display) to other applications (e.g. VLC for video, audio).
With a strong emphasis on banning remote code execution (JS), the father of all evils.
It may be convenient to call a coworker from Teams in your browser, but it is not a sane way to do it because we end up to where we are now: browser oligopoly. Convenience can be a trap; scammers and phishing use it all the time by including "direct" links. People are told again and again to know better and use their bookmarks instead.
The kind of flexible dynamic delegation that'd need (outside extremely simplistic uses) really doesn't exist in any OS that I've seen. And it would have to be quite sophisticated, to resist abuses and ensure latency is as low as it needs to be. I'm not sure we'd be in any better place if that happened - browsers would be simpler, but OSes and those media players/plugin-able things would gain significantly more complexity to offset it.
If your goal is to get rid of all the fancy stuff, then yeah - gopher still exists, all UX can be thrown out the window, it all exists today. But I don't think that'll go anywhere, except in extreme niches.
Never argue with a customer. The customer doesn’t give 2 cent about your motivation, it’s not their job. When I saw the pricing I had a good laugh and moved on.
If the only motivation for this product is money, then it will die in no time. Comparing the value I’m getting to the 7€ / month on Amazon prime, or the 10€ for Apple Music – that’s the value perception you’re competing against.
If you tell me you need 120€ a year from multiple customers to maintain and improve a json app good luck. One time purchase – get access – done. You can later upsell me with even more features in a v2 or whatever. I also doubt this tool has a lot of running costs to warrant this much.
Maybe if you work in SF and you make 300k a year so 10 bucks don’t mean much, but for the rest of the world 10$ is a lot of money / month.
Thank you very much for sharing your thoughts! Based on feedback from multiple people, it's clear there's a significant issue with the product pricing, which I'll seriously reflect upon! From your perspective, there seem to be two issues:
1. The price is too high.
2. Dislike for subscription-based payments.
I have no problem with the first point, but I'm curious why everyone dislikes the subscription model so much? Or at the end of the day, is it really because the price is too high?
> why everyone dislikes the subscription model so much
Because _everything_ is a subscription today, and even more of them make people angry. When a tool doesn't have any "infrastructure" costs per se, it rubs people the wrong way. Most don't want yet another subscription to manage
Interesting perspective. Let me share my thoughts, which might relate to consumer psychology:
- With a buyout system, users perceive that they own the item after payment.
- With a subscription system, users perceive that they are renting the item after payment.
When there's a mismatch in expectations (I pay to own, but you only let me rent), users feel deceived and angry. The same issue occurs with the ownership of accounts in online games, where some game companies state in their terms of service that the game account belongs to them, not the user, naturally leading to user outrage.
Making your efforts focused on a thing seems like a good idea, given proper research and discovery is done and the metric to improve is measurable and meaningful.
I think the criticism you are voicing is more down to a management style rather than OKRs. I’ve never would isolate my team members in areas and prevent knowledge being focused in one person. Always let the group tackle the problem and let them decide on who is going to work on it. Encourage pair programming and especially during the problem discovery, involve the entire team (when tackling a large, new problem).
Smaller stuff can be picked up by the same engineer. A bug fix here, a small adjustment there. But as soon as you introduce a big chunk of business logic, it’s important to bring along the team. I feel like that’s not what happens to you, but I don’t see this as a fault of OKRs
We live in such a capitalistic world by now, that most people’s happiness is, if they want it or not, tied to money. And I think society is moving further towards this.
Having kids would be a large financial burden and given my projection, would mean I wouldn’t be able to guarantee a decent living and the mental stability, because kids are brutal and societal pressures are very hard to free yourself from.
I grew up very poor and only very recently I was able to get out of debt i racked up just to survive (and sheer ignorance/living above my means, because I had nothing to lose and no perspective). I would hate myself of putting a child in that position myself.
If money wouldn’t be such a dominant force in current society, I’d very much consider having children.