Unfortunately, AI-Generated SEO articles are a race to the bottom, with everyone churning out the same keyword-stuffed fluffy low value articles with the same tired phrasing, "In the <everchanging|fast-paced|dynamic> world of <topic|industry|function>.. crucial crucial. "In today's digital age..."
Id like you to consider what is the true value-add here not from the perspective of getting paying customers, but from the perspective of the final end customer (the reader). Putting more low quality ai-generated content on the web degrades the experience.
Its nice when you can buy $60/bushel wheat. Its not so nice when your dealer cuts you off.
The extra $40/bushel you pay to produce in-house, thats your insurance policy against having your supplies cut off. In a world where geopolitical lines are shifting, it's a matter of national security and optionality to have your own food production capacity. Risk management.
That's not risk management, that's a panicked reaction. Risk management accepts risk, takes into account likelihood and cost, and finds the most economical outcome.
Taking into account the most economical outcome in the short/medium term also can make your country or community poor in the long term. If you care about the future of where you live, its important to cultivate and support local industry, even when its more expensive.
> Taking into account the most economical outcome in the short/medium term also can make your country or community poor in the long term. If you care about the future of where you live, its important to cultivate and support local industry, even when its more expensive.
Your solution is the short-term one, maybe not even that. In the long run, your community is much better off producing what it does best and trading with others for what they produce best, rather than everyone trying to do everything at some mediocre level.
Your solution is like Microsoft building its own furniture and cars and flying its own planes, rather than making software and buying the furniture, cars, and air travel from those who are expert in it.
Your reply comes right out of ECON 101, and is broadly speaking correct. Still, you've missed the point.
Let's use your example, Microsoft. Companies have different incentives than communities or countries, but I think we can make this work.
For many years, Microsoft only sold software, and let others who were experts in hardware make the hardware and install microsoft on it. Later, they realised that it was strategically important to manufacture their own consumer hardware, and now you have the Surface lineup. Maybe in the near future, they will decide they need to start manufacturing their own chips. If they do that, it's not going to be cheap, especially in the short term. In fact, Microsoft might never be able to produce chips more cheaply than Intel. But they still could choose to do it in-house (or just buy Intel) if the alternative is to lose their dominant position in the market.
What a bizarre things to say. First of all, are you an economist who can comment on other people's sophistication? Second, who cares? The merits are what matters, and you agree it's "broady speaking, correct".
And risk management in this sphere consists of subsidizing local producers.
The world is three meals away from anarchy, being dependent on the caprice of global markets for food is a great recipe for getting regime-changed by starving people.
> The world is three meals away from anarchy, being dependent on the caprice of global markets for food is a great recipe for getting regime-changed by starving people.
The evidence shows that vastly overstates the risks: It hasn't happened or even come close to happening yet. In fact, name any place that has turned anarachic due to food shortages.
The modern global markets are not capricious, but the most efficient, effective distributors of resources in the history of the world.
Exactly. I would rather be laid off with severance rather than be forced into the choice to be be offered a 100% on-site job across the country or quit. Cruel.
True. Walmart puts up a quote in their store breakrooms that goes something like "Don't be creative, follow the procedures". While that's aimed at retail workers, not the people in tech centers, it was interesting to see actually turned into a poster with Sam Walton's face on it. Suspect that it permeates the culture of the company.
It's a weird way of doing it though, right? This will surely push away your better workers who have options. You're going to be left with the worse employees who have no other options.
Without knowing your customers, your product, your industry, or your use case, its difficult to give pointed advice. Here is some generic advice:
- You need to learn more about the value proposition of your product so you can best align price with value. If your product saves me $1m/year, that will have very difference pricing than if it saved me $100/year
- If adoption is what you're optimizing for, I'd be in favor of having a completely free tier (even free of transaction costs) up to a certain level, then billing turns on after you reach that threshold. This means customers invest in wiring into your product because it makes them money. By the time they reach the billable threshold, they already see the value prop and happily pay instead of rewiring everything to a new platform.
- If early revenue is what you're optimizing for, start charging immediately to get some intelligence about what customers are willing to pay. If you get some early customers on an underpriced version, thats fine. Grandfather them in under goodwill (for now) and adjust the pricing for net new customers.
It was explained to me using the analogy of watching sports: One of the most entertaining activities for a human is to watch other humans do things. This is why professional sports leagues exist. This is also why “Watching people play computer games” is a perfectly reasonable entertainment option, despite it not being your preference.
I read some research that when watching sports the avid spectators at times feel like they are actually playing the game. So, for a small amount of time they feel like they can score and play like the professionals. In some ways they become one with the players in their minds. I suspect that's why we hear things like, "we won", "we scored", "we beat them." When in reality the fans had little to do with the action and the game.
There's also the simple entertainment of the game. The game can be thought of as a story that has a beginning, middle and an end that can be happy, exciting or just plain boring. It can also be tragic if things don't go according to the fan's expectations.
I think all of this carries over to why people like to watch streaming games.
