Donkter @ Donkter @lemmy.world

Posts

1

Comments

1,463

Joined

3 yr. ago

Sorry I should have clarified that the type of ads this meme is talking about (i.e banner ads and spot ads) don't work, and yet we have more than ever before. We know this because it's demonstrable that you need more capital than ever and more ad time than ever to see equivalent returns.

If a company really wants to sell their product they do tie-in deals with personalities or commission news stories to be laundered for them.

Yeah. I wasn't saying people aren't capable of not wanting kids. This was mostly as an explanation of the phenomenon of people saying they didn't think they wanted kids until they had them.

It's because ads don't work on people anymore. You need hundreds to thousands of views on an ad to get a handful of click-throughs. Companies don't know what to do anymore because advertising is really the only concept that makes sense to them.

Also ads are a form of soft power. Companies spend millions/billions of dollars on YouTube/twitch etc. to threaten creators with "demonetization" if they step too far out of line when they criticize the wrong people.

One major difference is our genetic wiring. You'll find that many many people with kids you meet say "I was pretty sure I didn't want kids, but once you have them you wonder why you ever thought you wouldn't want them."

So the answer is yeah, if you did have kids you would probably not regret it. It's just one of like the only 3 things we evolved to do as human beings, your body gives you really strong incentives to take care of your kids.

But if you never have kids you can also not regret it and both can be true.

Ah, I didn't think about that. That's indeed fucked up as a flagship product.

Christ, what was the thought process? "Hey, only a small fraction of the population wears necklaces regularly. What on fucking earth should we make our flagship product that is meant to appeal to as many people as possible?"

My point with that comparison is precisely that. That child of doctors is a result of a type of nepotism and they are much more likely to make it in the medical field than a child who may be intrinsically smarter than them but did not have the advantage of having parents who instilled that passion to become a doctor and educated them for the profession at an early age.

I edited the post to further acknowledge that I'm not talking about the advantage of parents being connected in the industry. Which I mention in the first paragraph of my post. It's a larger problem in the entertainment industry than most because that industry is so cut-throat and competitive and frankly because more than most industries mediocre talent can be mitigated by the dozens of other people working with them to make the product, not to mention the ability of marketing to exalt people who might not deserve it. Rereading your post it seems you were responding exclusively to that which I thought was pretty clearly not the subject of my post.

I was simply acknowledging the fact that things like passion, obsession, and talent are all things that are heavily influenced by parents. Kid A could be intrinsically worse at music than Kid B (for as much as we know about nature vs nurture) but if Kid A has musician parents who encourage lessons, or even teach the kid themselves from a very young age and Kid B only discovers their passion on their own in high school or later. Kid A will probably always be a better musician due to a form of nepotism.

While I agree that that's existentially unfair, and maybe we can create a world where all children are given identical education so that we only get the best of the best in every field, I think it's a bit wack to say Kid A doesn't deserve to express their art or even outshine Kid B because they tragically grew up in a music-obsessed family.

For the slightest bit of defence: it makes sense. "Nepo baby" generally refers to some kid who doesn't have the qualifications for their role but got it through their parents giving them an unfair chance.

But it makes perfect sense that if you grow up in a house with actors and writers for parents they can both teach you about the business, they'll be happy to pay for that kind of education, and they'll be super encouraging because unlike most families, to them becoming an actor or director is a perfectly reasonable goal.

It's like a child of doctors growing up to become a doctor. On one hand their parents could have just pulled some strings, on the other hand, having parents excited to teach you organic chemistry and advanced math in middle school probably helps you a lot when it comes to qualifying for med school.

I don't think all Hollywood nepo babies are like this. I'm just saying you would expect to see children of great actors become actors themselves.

Edit: so some of these responses confuse me. I say in the first paragraph that "nepo baby" generally refers to a subset of children who take on their parents job who are given unfair opportunities despite not being the most qualified for it. It might not be the strict definition but it's my modern understanding of it and it's the thing that people are actually angry about, including me. Acknowledging this at the top is meant to caveat what I'm saying for the rest of the post that I'm not talking about those people.

I agree that in a perfect world all people should get as much access as possible to any education and opportunities they want and I hope we get that.

It's weird how consistent this is. It's always about ungratefulness, so it must be a common cause.

Is it just boomers being mad that their children told them they're being lied to by their phones?

The whole point of AI hate anyway is that there is physically no world in which this happens. Any LLM we have now, no matter how much power we give it, is incapable of abstract thought or especially self-interest. It's just a larger and larger chatbot that would not be able to adapt to all of the systems it would have to infiltrate, let alone have the impetus to do so.

The great thing about this job is that you can cash 300k without doing anything because as soon as you hear the code word you just have to ignore it for 10 seconds and the world ends anyway.

So it's a meme

Lmao the edits have sent me. You realized you were coming off as ungrateful with the complaint about the down votes.

I've seen this before and the most lefty nonsense to me is the amount of olive oil you're putting on a "quick lunch" like, I hate to break it to you but you're going to be spending your evening in the bathroom.

"but some day I might! And then people like me better watch their step!"

Ironically you need therapy in order to go to therapy. If someone has issues with overthinking, anxiety about interacting with people, stress/anger issues, depression that makes them unmotivated of course it's going to be hard to go to a stranger they're expected to be their most vulnerable with.

If a company gets so big that it "needs" billions of dollars to build its own town then that company's profits and decisions should be split among its stakeholders (i.e. all of its employees).

If someone starts a company then they should be rewarded with profits if it succeeds. Contrary to capitalist arguments. The big brains behind companies don't do it to make 15 billion dollars. They do it instead to get obscenely rich, and despite our completely warped views with companies like Tesla and Amazon, "obscenely rich" starts in the hundreds of millions of dollars maybe a billion dollars if someone was an idiot.

On top of that there are thousands of examples throughout history that show that people don't invent things solely to make money and the original big brains behind company innovations were not necessarily profit motivated.

Yeah on top of learning language, learning how to sleep, learning to walk, eat, hell how to coordinate their whole body. For 5 years that's incredible.

"if babies can learn it, you can probably learn it as well"

Bruh, lmao I totally get the sentiment you're going for but babies are famously the best at learning things.