Definitely single whip. Looks like he stopped to pose in the middle of it. He's also facing the wrong way; that body position should be on the diagonal if anything.
If there's any difference between printmaking and photography, it's that printmaking requires one to physically print each item. There's a non-trivial amount of manual setup to do, and the process can take days.
Photography can be printed basically on-demand owing to the nature of the medium.
It doesn't mean that limited runs in photography are less valid, though. Once that print is editioned no reputable artist will just print more. (although there are ways around it, like different colorways) It definitely makes the item more "collectible".
Oh definitely, I agree, woodcut and digital art and photos, for example, are all wildly different media. I’d expect a woodcut to cost more than a photo, all else being equal, because it’s more physical - both making the plate, and setting up the print run - and generally closer to fine art.
The economics of the limited edition part is still the same for printmaking though, right? The printmaker could choose to make a single print and then sell the plate, or destroy the plate, and it would be closer to sculpture - a one of a kind piece of art. I wouldn’t be surprised if there are one or two printmakers that do this and can sell a single print at a time for enough money to make a living. But I think it’s more common to do a limited edition run and sell multiple copies, same as photographers, no?
A lot of modern prints aren't really made like that. They're just run off on (basically) nice commercial inkjets.
Sure that's not exactly fine art, but there's a big market for it, including things like collectors. Virtually all concert posters are printed this way, for instance.
You know who has capital? The US government. It's very plausible that the Army could fund the infrastructure needed for this industry as a national security imperative.
Manufacturing is often thought as this concept that you can just throw money at any time, I'm afraid to say often you are throwing your money into a void.
Equipment is one thing, but engineers are literally the lifeblood of production infrastructure. Without them you are pissing into the wind
The Army already has a branch specifically devoted to engineering, the Army Corps of Engineers. While its primary focus is civil engineering, training and employing electrical and electronics engineers certainly doesn't seem out of the question.
I have privacy concerns, but an AI that worked as a servant would be a great help. I can't afford servants (or slaves), but I want something that listens in and takes action when I want something. Interrupt me when I'm planning vacation to remind me that there is some other event at home when I'd be gone. When I run low on baking powder ensure I get more.
Again, the privacy concerns need to be addressed. However there is a lot of potential for an AI in my house if it works.
It works by listening for the keyword (it's name), and only then opening a connection to servers. You can verify this by removing internet connectivity and it'll still "turn on" when you say it's name, but will be unable to respond.
Tesla’s current products are similar to older failed products from other manufacturers. Tesla’s future products are similar to older failed products from other manufacturers. Tesla’s current products are largely profitable.
Just exactly why are we bashing on attempts to bring products to market?
I will say i view the “lies” as woefully aspirational but not malicious in intent. and i do think the lines can blur. but i’d rather have cool new things and a few fools fooled benevolently than, for instance, no true EV market.
So the new thesis is "okay, so it's a shit car manufacturer, but it might one day do [random other thing of questionable plausibility and market value]"? Like, what if BMW makes a teleporter? What if Ford discovers the elixir of youth?
(Also I feel bound to point out that Honda notoriously _does_ make robots, though they don't seem to have done it much good.)
It is unclear to me why people think that making humanoid robots is particularly valuable, or why Tesla would be a leader in that market, if it existed, and to be clear it does not seem to exist. What are the humanoid robots for?
Artists are underpaid because subscription fees are too low to provide adequate payouts. There just isn't enough money to go around. Everybody wants artists to get better payouts but nobody would pay the $200 a month subscription fee it would require.
No, it sounds like many people want artists to get better payouts, but not if it means they have to pay more, which really isn't the same thing.
If more than 50% of what listeners end up paying for the subscription goes to the artists, I guess they'd prefer that, rather than the money going elsewhere.
I find Spotify relatively expensive in comparison to say Netflix. It takes far more capital to record a movie then it takes to record music. The same is true for storage and streaming. Yet, Netflix subscriptions are much cheaper than Spotify and Netflix is far more profitable. Spotify's business model is simply broken.
Spotify needs to pay ~70% of the revenue as royalties, Netflix started their own productions to not have to disburse in royalties (and the quality suffered).
Netflix was the first ever streaming service I canceled the subscription without feeling I had lost anything, after more than 10 years as a paying subscriber their quality declined so much I didn't care about it at all. It's been 3 years and I never thought about subscribing again.
The problem isn't physically building the rail, the problem is the legal framework in which governments operate in. Multiple rounds of environmental impact statements, eminent domain lawsuits, preferred contractor RFP's, zoning, permitting, endless red tape...
This is the central thesis of Ezra Klein's "Abundance" book. Basically, things like this (or high speed rail, or public housing) don't get built in the USA because the government has hamstrung itself with so many rules and regulations that it becomes prohibitively expensive and/or tied up in lawsuits.
Places like China, for better or worse, are not burdened with the problem of making sure every constituency is accommodated.
