Have you wondered why Youtube videos automatically start playing a new one, once the one you have been watching ends?
It is because many online services compete for our attention. For example, they are interested in which news timeline would grab your attention the most. If you ask yourself, in the end of the day, what sort of news timeline you would consider time well spent, it will probably be a very different timeline than the one served to you.
Here Tristan Harris argues that what teenagers do on social media is different than what they did on the phone in the 70s. The reason is that in the 70s there was no arms race for using the phone more, even though there was still an economic incentive to use the phone.
If you want a more in depth conversation on the same topic, listen to the 2 hour episode from Dan Harris’s podcast.
Similar to using step trackers to help people to monitor their physical health, he calls for something like a timeline tracker or phone usage tracker to help people monitor their smartphone usage.
Here is an interesting video on the economics of airline class.
In summary, the original airline tickets cost as much as the first class of today. The main reason there are economy tickets today is that there is not enough demand for business class tickets to fill a plane.
Here is an interesting video on how rulling works, regardless of political system.
It seems to suggest that the rulling is only possible if major interests are represented and that, in any political/power organisation, there is always an oligarchy representing the major interests that is doing the ruling. Better watch the 20 min video to get more detail and make up your mind...
I would suggest to spend the time to watch it. If you really want the summary it is:
The Hollywood norm has always been creative unoriginality in music scoring. Often by copying the style of other movies and playing it safe.
It is possible that the references being copied in recent movies have a smaller gamut of music than in the past, but the major problem of forgettable music in modern blockbusters is not lack of originality, or risk.
The main thing that has changed is that music is now made in a computer. For good practical reasons: it is much cheaper and flexible to adapt to a movie in production, while it is still being cut. The problem is that computers have not been good at simulating instruments that stand on their own to do melody. Or at least it is not easy to do.
The boring music of modern blockbusters is due to the lack of subtlety in the choices that led to its production, which result in little focus in melody. Solo flutes are not the norm, drums beats are. And they are not very memorable.
While it is probably a combination of digital music affecting the movie making process and a shift towards de-emphasising music, it seems to me like a lost opportunity to make great popular art.
An easy accusation would be that music is yet another thing the creators are not putting their soul into. But I think the person scoring a movie might actually be very into it. To me it is more interesting whether they would have chosen their career path if they had grown listening to the work they are producing.
I think the problem is that the movie making process treats the public as mindless consumers who will be offended by more refined choices. While it is true that not all viewers will grasp and appreciate subtleties in a movie, this is not a reason to remove them from the movie. It is not a good reason to make a movie targetted at the lowerst denomicator. And it commits the sin of not leading by example - how are people supposed to be exposed to more complicated subjects and discover if they appreciate them? Is the only way to increase the depth of the movie to increase its complexity?
To me this sort of behaviour is a denouncement of responsibility. Irresponsibility and the accusation of elitism (the other defence of the bored/uninsprired creator), reminds me of news reporters accusing educators appearing in the news of any misinformation the news has spread. They say their job is entertainment and making money, not education. The defence of irresponsibility is to deny responsibility. I think it is a problem if the creator and the public think the creator has no responsibility.
Interestingly, the video above is a response to the following video.
Both are good, but I prefer the one that prefers function over form. That is what I would aspire to create if I was 15 years old and considering my career.
Here is an idea: The democratisation of public speech allowed by the social internet has given too much power to the masses, which can get out of control.
Who can watch these modern watchmen (or watchwomen)?
Summary: Positive thinking can be a way to silence healthy doubt
The video suggests that positive thinking for the sake of it is delusional.
I would prefer to call it delusional optimism. The problem is that people are not allowed to warn others of problems they see, in the name of optimism.
