I hope that our current articles will look dated and silly. The issue is that we don't know which part will, and which part will, as this article is, reflect still-current in another context thoughts which will engage us to think of a deeper question underneath.
Well in my language "é" is absolutely not special, and should definitively be placed near "e" (to the point that uppercase é is often written E instead of É)
Reminder: top 10% richest worldwide seem (from my 10s. google search [1]) to amount to around $100k net worth, so for many people there, it's not them, its' us. 1% is around $1M net worth.
This is extremely important. Most people have a very skewed perspective on what it means to be in the global 10% or 1%. I think this paper would be much more impactful if the authors listed the calculations used for defining these groups in the Methods section. Ideally the cutoff for each group should even be in the abstract so people can understand what 1% or 10% even means.
replaced with "if I wanted a pic of a monument I'd look it up on the net" (or even I'd generate it myself). Same; Instead of getting someone in front of a nice scenery (or even getting the scenery by itself), I consider putting a nice background to the photos of people I love.
There is a big difference between advertising and information. First, most people are generally not being paid by big energy alternatives to promote it. Of course we can talk about things. What we wouldn't be able is to be paid by someone to have a specific public discourse.
> There's a big difference between advertising and information
I recommend looking up the videos they made in the 1950s about how to use modern appliances, telephones, etc. and then noting that those videos were mostly paid for by the companies that manufactured those goods because they had a vested interest in people knowing how to use the tools so they would buy the tool.
> What we wouldn't be able is to be paid by someone to have a specific public discourse.
Widecast public communications always cost money. Always. Somebody is putting money forward to put a message on that billboard, or on that radio, or on that website. If we ban advertising but we aren't banning billboards, radio, and websites, we are tying off one category of communicator. Cynically, I would expect the result to not be an end to commercial advertising, but for more commercial advertising disguised as other things. I don't know that we would be able to disambiguate the two ideas, not in a world where, for example, public television programs are supported by the Sears Roebuck Corporation.
Those explication videos are product instructions. They can still be made available in the youtube channel of this brand (and for my bike, they were and I'm glad for them).
Yes youtube costs money to run. Selling your private data and attention shouldn't be an option.
So who should pay the bill? If you're the customer, that would be You, or no one if you consider that empty channel not to be worth it.
So you only get to see the bike tutorial if you have the money to pay for it. That widens the haves / have-nots gap; I'm not sure that's a desirable goal.
