Yes, and while Charles Darrow, who became the first millionaire game inventor due to the game's success, profited substantially from royalties, Lizzie Magie, the original creator of the game’s concept, sold her patent for just $500 and received no royalties.

Ha, I knew those penguins weren't trustworthy.

I just watched the debate. It's true that Vance is better than Trump when it comes to rhetoric, but that's not difficult. The sad thing is that many people seem to only care about how someone says something and not at all about what someone says.

What's with the boomer stuff? Does the internet really need any bogeymen to blame for everything bad? Seems to be the case. So it's hardly surprising that people like Trump are so successful. It's the same thing, just packaged differently

I haven't seen the debate yet (cause time difference). I expect one guy spewing mostly hate and some made up stuff and one guy trying to make any sense of what his opponent says and try to fact check at least some of that. No substantial debate about anything actually important but an all American show as usual. I'm looking forward to that.

I'm from Germany, where this shameful history is part of our past. But even today, unfortunately, and even in my home country, there are resurgent forces that want exactly that once more: Hatred against everything that seems foreign to them. Don't let that happen anywhere in the world. Let history speak for itself and let us be wiser this time: never again this inhumanity, never again racism against whomever it may be directed at.

Thank you for your thoughtful reply. I myself worked for a social media company for some time (although more in IT, not in their core business). The success metrics for this company were exclusively followers, likes and so on. There were no other metrics whatsoever.

Sure, still a bit weird tho. I mean what happens when OP is on a business trip and his gf seems to suddenly have a whole different taste in music in the morning? Could easily lead to misunderstandings...or not.

I'm sure they are. How could they not? They love you for who you are and what you do and what you think...

That's cute and all, but it's also pretty much what Google, Facebook, Apple, Microsoft, Spotify and all the other tech giants are doing when they're joyfully tracking what people are doing without their knowledge or consent.

(Reichs)Kristallnacht? Wtf...

Wut?

Sixteen in the clip and one in the hole Nate Dogg is about to make some bodies turn cold Now they droppin' and yellin', it's a tad bit late Nate Dogg and Warren G had to regulate

Well, in that regard not too much changed, I think. Record labels always mostly pushed music and artists with mass appeal. They still do but have lost a lot of their power to companies like Spotify, Apple and Google (YouTube). But these players do pretty much the same with their algorithms. So I don't think that popular music has changed too much. There are still influential companies that can pretty much dictate what people listen to. I still don't think it has become much worse, since back in the day you weren't even able to produce an album without a record deal because studio time, distribution and all that was so expensive. Today you can produce everything yourself in your bedroom. Sure, it's unlikely that you will be very successful marketing your record - but at least it's somewhat possible.

I don't think music has gotten any worse. However, it is much easier and cheaper to produce music today: you don't have to be able to play an instrument and professional production is possible with comparatively inexpensive software on any standard computer. This and also the changes in distribution (no more need for sound carriers, ...) have probably led to a lot more music being produced today than in the past. Of course, this does not mean that music has become better as a result, but it also does not mean that it has become worse. You just have to find the gems among the admittedly gigantic amount of junk.

I think the so-called KPIs (Key Performance Indicators) are a major problem of our time, because they are often defined incorrectly or misunderstood. All too often, decision-makers seem to think that the pure number of followers, for example, or engagement metrics such as likes would indicate that an account or post is successful. However, this is often not the case when other important metrics are taken into account. In e-commerce, for example, a large number of followers or high engagement figures in themselves mean nothing at all: it is not uncommon for e-commerce companies to invest a lot of money in social media management and for the KPIs of their accounts to rise accordingly - but still not sell anything via this channel (that means that the investment is not worth it, of course, because the costs are disproportionate to the sales generated; the ROI is often not good at all). I think a similar situation can be assumed for many science accounts on Mastodon, for example. Although the number of followers maybe not very high here because there are less active useres, the quality of comments can still be a lot higher. But unfortunately this cannot be quantified, or at least not easily. I therefore think that everyone should first think about what they want to achieve with their social media accounts. It then makes sense to define suitable KPIs instead of being impressed by what can be considered an indicator of success elsewhere and in a completely different context.

I don't really get why it takes news like this for people to understand that all those involved with this political program can't be good people.

I mean Hitler was a dog lover. Does that make him a good person? I don't think so.

Why BlueSky or even Threads tho?

✌️

The guy is a politician. Unfortunately, for obvious reasons, he cannot show the gesture of his own political camp. So he will have to make do with this symbolic loan. But it fits in quite well with his election campaign, especially as he strangely portrays his opponents as fascists.