It is amazing how often the argument parallels one such as, "But I deserve to be able to make a living as a chandler or a wheelwright even in 2026!" I would truly love if we could all make a living doing what we want to do (I'd be doing a lot of different things if that were the case), but that just isn't the reality of markets/technological progress.
Not in every instance, but in aggregate technological progress has clearly been beneficial.
Just look at living conditions, infant mortality, life expectancy or education.
You could be anywhere on the planet relative to me and I can talk to you for free, instantaneously at any time. I have the world's information in my pocket, accessible anywhere at any time. I could go on!
It seems most takes on this are that ends either always or never justify the means, but rarely is their discussion on the option that they can and developing a system of when they do and don't. At least in the general public discourse I've seen involving means and ends.
Been at this 10 years. My top tip is if you’re doing cold outreach, kickstart the value exchange by giving something first without asking for anything in return.
A “hey I noticed x is costing you more than it should and could be better/cheaper done like this” AND then actually give them the “this” for free without expectation of anything in return is 10x more effective than a message where you’re asking for work.
It doesn’t need to be a big give - an actionable plan for a small system improvement they can give to someone internal to implement, for example, is fine.
Another tip is to highlight the problem with a loom video/recording of some sort. That way they’ve seen and heard you too. This builds instant trust and a feeling of knowing the person behind the business straight away.
> A “hey I noticed x is costing you more than it should and could be better/cheaper done like this” AND then actually give them the “this” for free without expectation of anything in return is 10x more effective than a message where you’re asking for work.
Can you give a more specific example from your recent experience?
(My point is: this sounds like very plausible sounding advice, until you try to apply this to a producer of steel ball bearings located in Upper Austria, just outside of Linz)
My approach is to break the project into small milestones — especially in the beginning — and align the incentives.
Put bluntly, I design it so I can't lose, and neither can my client. I design it so even in an adversarial, zero trust environment, the relationship and arrangement still makes sense.
In practice this looks like, I do a bit of work up front, ship a demo within the first week, if they're happy, they pay, it becomes theirs, and we continue working together.
I also choose projects I actually like, and that align with my goals, so even if I get hosed, I had fun and learned cool things. (But keeping milestones small minimizes the cost of getting hosed, for both parties :)
I remember signing up to Netflix to watch house of cards back in the early 2010s and being absolutely blown away.
I don’t think there’s been a single show on Netflix I’ve genuinely looked forward to in the past couple of years. It’s like they completely gave up on quality content and just shovel out the most mediocre slop. I’m amazed people still pay these ever increasing prices.
In the early days, Netflix benefited from other media companies not recognizing streaming for what it was: their replacement. They licensed content to Netflix cheaply without thinking about how it would impact DVD sales or cable tv subscriptions.
It's kinda like how IBM didn't see the value in software and that let Microsoft become Microsoft.
I am still trying to recover from whatever Witcher season 3 broke in my brain by its audaciously low quality.
I was kicked out of the suspension of disbelief so hard I can't unsee things about the production process now, like makeup, continuity, costuming, sound design.
It was like the whole crew from script to editor just gave up, totally bizarre for headliner content.
Severance (Apple TV) and Fallout (Amazon Prime) are pretty amazing TV shows that came out somewhat recently. Nothing on top of my mind came out of Netflix for which I really felt the need of resubscribing.
I miss the quality of TV shows we reached with Mr. Robot, Silicon Valley, Utopia (UK), and Westworld :(
I pretty much declared streaming show bankruptcy after sitting through Severance season 2 last year.
I know a lot of people liked it and maybe I'm just cynical, but to me it seems like every "serious" streaming show eventually falls victim to the "stretch a 2 hour movie's plot across a 12 - 16 hour season" strategy. They know it works because enough people binge watch or feel compelled to finish a series they've started.
At this point, if I'm watching a show then it's something where the episodes are sufficiently satisfying self-contained stories (e.g. something like Star Trek, X-Files, sitcoms). If I want something with a more involved plot, then I'll watch a movie. These formats are better because the limited runtime requires the creators to be intentional about what they dedicate screen time to. Meanwhile in a modern "story-driven" streamslop show it's painfully obvious when they're just padding out the runtime with fluff to make it to 8 episodes.
Of course there are exceptions to this, and there are stories for which a miniseries or a long-form series is the ideal video medium to convey them. But what happens so often is that you get 1-2 seasons of compelling storytelling followed by N more mediocre seasons that keep getting made because enough people keep watching. And the latter are just not worth the time investment.
That is disheartening about Severance, I've been meaning to catch up on s2 after a phenomenal s1. But that you're totally on point about the padding. The last good series I saw that finished well was Mr Robot, getting closer to a decade ago now. No one knows how to write a well contained long running series anymore without stretching it with slop and content.
A few reasons I can think of, having been through IVF twice now:
- Capability. Many couples are perfectly capable of carrying a pregnancy, they’re just having trouble conceiving.
- Cost. Surrogacy in a lot of countries is very expensive compared to IVF. Where I live in the UK, IVF is free on the NHS, or ~£8,000-£10,000 a round privately. Surrogacy can be £20,000 to £100,000 (or more), depending on the arrangement.
- Legal issues. In the UK, for example, the surrogate mother is the legal mother of the child at birth.
- Availability. Finding a surrogate can be very hard, especially in countries where commercial surrogacy is illegal. People go use surrogates abroad instead, which has its own range of issues (read up on orphaned surrogate kids in Ukraine).
- Ethical barriers. Using a surrogate involves issues of bodily autonomy. You can’t stop your surrogate smoking or drinking while pregnant, for example.
- Emotional barriers. Emotionally, motherhood starts at conception. Most mothers do not want to skip those 9 months of bonding they have with their baby prior to it being born.
It's weird. I was born with the internet being largely a business or academic tool, with normal people barely having a reason to have an email address.
When I was in high school, flip phones could let you text friends, as long as you didn't mind your parents later using your soul to pay the phone bill.
When I was in college, the most addictive thing the internet could offer was foul bachelor frogs and rage comics.
Along the way, I learned how dangerous even those unrefined sugars were. It was like chewing coca leaves or sugarcane. Enough t get you a buzz, but not enough to ruin your life. So I know not to touch the algorithmic fentanyl feeds of TikTok and the like.
But good god, nobody younger or older had any protection from this. My parents and spouses parents, and my zoomer cousins both basically got handed giant bags of refined gigasugar without even the vaguest warnings. I'll refrain from likening it to opiates against because they are on a whole different level, but good god it does seem more dangerous than even refined sugar.
It’s definitely not limited to Facebook. About half of the 50-70 year olds in my family and my wife’s family are screen addicted without Facebook. They live on questionable news websites, messenger apps, Nextdoor, and some others.
It’s strange to hear a 60-something rant about how evil Facebook is and then go on to regurgitate countless conspiracy theories they picked up from whatever websites they’re reading this month.
The parents who scroll Instagram and Facebook feel downright tame in comparison.
For about 2-3 years now youtube itself is flooded with countless channels producing generated content. Whoever are the people behind this they know what they're doing and what kind of stuff will give them views and attention from vulnerable audience.
There's fueling political and social rage with "news", casting doubts on family relations with "true life stories" (daughter-in-law threw me out of my house), religious "coaching" (dead since end of 60s Padre Pio gives you life lessons and "secret" prophecies), worthless tips and tricks (don't eat this nut if you're 50yo woman or your hair will fell off), lewd promotion with twist on history (sexual violence in every thumbnail) or tourism (women in country of x are "ready" all the time). So on and so on.
So I'd say it's not that much strange if you look closely what kind of the content older people can walk onto. And this is just youtube.
I shouldnt be surprised that my mom is obsessed with her smartphone. As a kid, I remember her talking with friends on the landline phone for what seemed like HOURS
My Dad’s got early stage dementia and Facebook is an absolute nightmare. The apps infested with AI slop and the algorithm seems to fill his feed with stuff designed to get him worked up (currently badly behaved cyclists even though he no longer drives).
I have hoarded 61849 short videos (44 GB, filtered, no propaganda, spam or low quality stuff) from 9gag, with this you could build a "Fakebook" of your own and serve your parents whatever you want, I randomly picked 5 videos:
- funny cat video
- superfluid helium document from 60s
- people jumping on a roof and falling through
- abba sos song (in Swedish, or Esperanto, idk)
- kid saving bus driver with stroke
Analyze them with LLM, generate positive comments and you're good to go.
old folks and children both face the same problem with the internet— their initial exposure is to the current internet that has been ab tested into a hyper-addictive hellscape and they are cognitively unprepared. Jumping straight into the deep end before you know how to swim.
Whereas genX and Xennials had the privilege of wading into a pre-social media internet during their formative years which served as a vaccine of sorts. We are by no means immune to tech addiction and disinformation, but we seem much better equipped for spotting trolls/ragebait and giving the side-eye to addictive dark patterns in apps
everyone is vulnerable to it. i think the idea that certain generations are better equipped is more a by product of exposure rather than some sense of immunisation. GenX/Xennials are just more likely to have other things to do than going on social media at the same rate as other cohorts - whether its still busy working or kids or hobbies etc. Intense exposure and the reinforcement that brings is the problem. Its why the problems became even more pronounced through covid years
It’s unfortunate that it’s happening so rapidly that people are finding it hard to adjust, but I’d take that over it not happening at all.
reply