Sometimes I like to just speculate with what would result using my own ideas for something that people think has to be a certain way. Like YouTube is dominant video service and I use it a lot and like it.
But what would change if they directly implemented my ideas?
Remarkably there would be one main thing for sure: option for YouTube channels to allow download of a video after watching for a fee.
That is, people could STILL watch just like usual, but if they WISHED they could also see the option, for those who wanted to give it for their videos, to pay something like $1 US, or maybe more actually depending, and also download.
And yes if they wished they still might steal like people can do now anyway by doing downloads with options not directly allowed by YouTube.
My theories say plenty of people would buy, rather than steal, if they had the option, even if stealing was possible. And yes, plenty would buy rather than just watch over and over again on the site, like they can now.
If that sounds naive or weird to you then you have a divergence of your point of view with my theory.
So if I created a video service myself that would be standard, as consistent with my idea that most people will buy quality once they see it. But that idea that determining quality is key to making a buying decision is standard off the web.
So why can't you now? Ask the parent company of YouTube why.
If you can I don't know of it. As I remember to put in disclaimers. Better safe than sorry.
Funny enough Steve Jobs broke the thinking on downloads of songs, with iTunes when he forced the ability to buy songs. Of course he was a genius. Without him? Who knows what would have happened there. But for real, for those who make money from sales on iTunes imagine if that option were not there. One guy made it happen.
Why didn't music industry want to do before Steve Jobs so he had to MAKE it happen? Ask them.
James Harris
Saturday, June 18, 2016
Tuesday, June 14, 2016
Web helps explain quite a bit
One of the puzzles for me for years has been how I can find simple explanations in areas where previously I thought things were SO complicated, and web giving access to LOTS of information is the best explanation.
Comparison is powerful. And with the web for instance I first really consciously realized a sense that the American press actually was capable of carefully manipulating news was when caught it by carefully reading news articles from here, and comparing with ones from other countries on the same subject. Maybe could have worked to do that in the past? But now it's easy.
That was actually depressing for me. And NOT saying American press always manipulates news but that one instance where worked hard to catch it changed how I viewed them. And that was years ago and should note am certain plenty of hardworking people in the American press dedicated to the truth, but yeah it really is not good for them as a group when any can get caught manipulating, even if is my opinion they were. For me? Of course that's enough and I reference quite a bit through the years and feel justified.
With employment, now plenty of people can just compare wages, or read up on wage information, while when I was early in the workforce was really just go to a job, and see what they offered. Obviously gave much advantage to employers.
And like even in science, before was just about the headlines, but a hobby of mine now is at times going back to check later, and being disappointed when follow-up research, rarely touted, refutes earlier bold declarations.
I blame the television age.
Television is a very limited medium with a short attention span. Big news on mainstream broadcast television can grab a few minutes, maybe with some broadcasts and then it goes back to the usual.
Within days on big network television in the US any particular news is gone, often to be never mentioned again.
But on the web things can just be getting going strongly, days, months or even years later.
With cable news can move in an opposite direction with relentless focus, which can deliver little of substantive value, and often was amazed at how better off five minutes of reading on a subject from several news sources could inform versus hours of relentless, from a cable news source.
But even cable news will move on. While on the web the information remains.
So the web facilitates study of issues from many angles, and also lets you put up ideas which can be widely read. And turns out simple explanations can be powerful and testable, with prediction letting you project what will likely happen, and people easily checking.
So much better, am sure. Especially since seeing how many frauds were pretending to be something they were not, creating huge levels of misery as well, which was often hidden. And we can even see the structure of how that hiding was done! From people who earned respect based on our inability to see enough information to know otherwise.
The web quite simply is an efficient distribution mechanism for information, which is so much greater than prior ones, especially television, there quite simply is no comparison in human history.
So the web is rapidly changing our world, and giving us the means to keep up with the changes.
And people like me? Well, I really want to understand. And talking out what I think I know helps me am sure, as yeah am rather meta on the subject.
James Harris
Comparison is powerful. And with the web for instance I first really consciously realized a sense that the American press actually was capable of carefully manipulating news was when caught it by carefully reading news articles from here, and comparing with ones from other countries on the same subject. Maybe could have worked to do that in the past? But now it's easy.
That was actually depressing for me. And NOT saying American press always manipulates news but that one instance where worked hard to catch it changed how I viewed them. And that was years ago and should note am certain plenty of hardworking people in the American press dedicated to the truth, but yeah it really is not good for them as a group when any can get caught manipulating, even if is my opinion they were. For me? Of course that's enough and I reference quite a bit through the years and feel justified.
With employment, now plenty of people can just compare wages, or read up on wage information, while when I was early in the workforce was really just go to a job, and see what they offered. Obviously gave much advantage to employers.
And like even in science, before was just about the headlines, but a hobby of mine now is at times going back to check later, and being disappointed when follow-up research, rarely touted, refutes earlier bold declarations.
I blame the television age.
Television is a very limited medium with a short attention span. Big news on mainstream broadcast television can grab a few minutes, maybe with some broadcasts and then it goes back to the usual.
Within days on big network television in the US any particular news is gone, often to be never mentioned again.
But on the web things can just be getting going strongly, days, months or even years later.
With cable news can move in an opposite direction with relentless focus, which can deliver little of substantive value, and often was amazed at how better off five minutes of reading on a subject from several news sources could inform versus hours of relentless, from a cable news source.
But even cable news will move on. While on the web the information remains.
So the web facilitates study of issues from many angles, and also lets you put up ideas which can be widely read. And turns out simple explanations can be powerful and testable, with prediction letting you project what will likely happen, and people easily checking.
So much better, am sure. Especially since seeing how many frauds were pretending to be something they were not, creating huge levels of misery as well, which was often hidden. And we can even see the structure of how that hiding was done! From people who earned respect based on our inability to see enough information to know otherwise.
The web quite simply is an efficient distribution mechanism for information, which is so much greater than prior ones, especially television, there quite simply is no comparison in human history.
So the web is rapidly changing our world, and giving us the means to keep up with the changes.
And people like me? Well, I really want to understand. And talking out what I think I know helps me am sure, as yeah am rather meta on the subject.
James Harris
Monday, June 06, 2016
Our species thinks about itself a lot
Searching for efficient ways to describe myself was a natural thing for me to do, and eventually that idea of focusing on my own things in a self-referential way got me inevitably to pondering just how much we human beings are fascinated by yup, human beings.
We're kind of stuck with it though. And push at it a bit with our fiction, especially science fiction where can try to imagine other sentient species is how it's usually said, but even that is a fiction of our imaginings that we could succeed.
For a long time I was revolted by the notion that man could be the measure, and still don't think that's correct! Science shows us a lot that our reality produced us, someway on which we can all agree though which way is contentious, or most of us as some people...but I digress. Science shows a reality that has rules that don't care about us, so we learn those rules and can do very well compared to yup, how humans did before! Those rules may not care should admit, but the Laws of Physics seem remarkably good at facilitating our existence, but that's a whole other area.
Our species has little choice but to engage in endless comparison with itself, as comparing elsewhere is odd. Like I really like algebra. I find it odd that people hate on algebra so much, but doesn't concern me at all if other creatures can't even comprehend it.
Have avoided using a word in this post I've decided to plaster all over the place elsewhere, just kind of to see. Though self-referential is the equivalent.
Our endless fascination with human beings as human beings is even more pronounced now like with the selfie. Like an endless stream of mirrors facing each other we reflect until some of us are simply reflecting ourselves.
And in a sense that's all that's happening anyway. Humans reflecting humans.
Even when we try to talk something else, there's usually a reflection of something human that drives us.
Do wonder if we will find ourselves as a species with other choices as is more possible clearly now as maybe some computer will get sentient, or maybe some other species will come and visit from space?
But notice how uncomfortable that could be. As for me? I like our species' self-absorption. Am endlessly fascinated by--human.
So to me things are ok just the way they are. Not like reality is listening to me, of course. But I find a certain comfort in saying anyway, which I suspect? Is only human.
James Harris
We're kind of stuck with it though. And push at it a bit with our fiction, especially science fiction where can try to imagine other sentient species is how it's usually said, but even that is a fiction of our imaginings that we could succeed.
For a long time I was revolted by the notion that man could be the measure, and still don't think that's correct! Science shows us a lot that our reality produced us, someway on which we can all agree though which way is contentious, or most of us as some people...but I digress. Science shows a reality that has rules that don't care about us, so we learn those rules and can do very well compared to yup, how humans did before! Those rules may not care should admit, but the Laws of Physics seem remarkably good at facilitating our existence, but that's a whole other area.
Our species has little choice but to engage in endless comparison with itself, as comparing elsewhere is odd. Like I really like algebra. I find it odd that people hate on algebra so much, but doesn't concern me at all if other creatures can't even comprehend it.
Have avoided using a word in this post I've decided to plaster all over the place elsewhere, just kind of to see. Though self-referential is the equivalent.
Our endless fascination with human beings as human beings is even more pronounced now like with the selfie. Like an endless stream of mirrors facing each other we reflect until some of us are simply reflecting ourselves.
And in a sense that's all that's happening anyway. Humans reflecting humans.
Even when we try to talk something else, there's usually a reflection of something human that drives us.
Do wonder if we will find ourselves as a species with other choices as is more possible clearly now as maybe some computer will get sentient, or maybe some other species will come and visit from space?
But notice how uncomfortable that could be. As for me? I like our species' self-absorption. Am endlessly fascinated by--human.
So to me things are ok just the way they are. Not like reality is listening to me, of course. But I find a certain comfort in saying anyway, which I suspect? Is only human.
James Harris
Sunday, June 05, 2016
Talking from the meta level
To me entertainment offers a way for me to discuss things closer to reality of most people so in this post will discuss meta entertainment, as previously have talked about defining entertainment functionally where emphasize as a way to control mood safely.
And talking of myself as a meta innovator feel can give an example where now will bring up sports and why usually is distinguished from entertainment.
And people say sports and entertainment, as in sports your player or your team may not always win. If you're cheering someone against an opponent then it doesn't help your mood to watch that person get crushed, and lose, right?
So consider tennis, where tennis champions tend to win until they are against other tennis champions, which means they win a LOT. And upsets are a big surprise when lower ranked players manage to win, but of course do happen, as is sports.
Now in entertainment, like in science fiction or more recently in comic book movies, the protagonists tends to win too! But is writers making it happen of course, but now you can see why fits mood of audience. And sometimes they DO lose in some way, right? Like "Star Wars", was followed by "Empire Strikes Back", but heroes win out in "Return of the Jedi".
Have seen situations where some decry the relentless winning, and talk about being "more realistic" where we can study from the meta level, which is like saying tennis should be "more realistic" and tennis champions should lose more! But of course they would not, so functionally is like saying should follow tennis players who lose more. But most of audience prefers to follow those who win more.
And predictably these attempts, where can think of a few but think it better not to call them out here specifically as is just opinion, failed with audiences. Having more depressive scenarios as if more realistic is not correct. It's simply following less successful imaginary people, where you can, and of course there are fans at all levels, simply follow less successful in the regular world too, in sports. It's like saying that fans should group away from the best players to the middle ones. Why? Fans can go where they want.
Now if you're an entertainment executive, I just explained how you can process if some excited writers come to you with what they think is a brilliant approach to making movies or television shows that are more, they think, like real life, when of course that is not true!
And how do we know? Because we just studied entertainment, from the meta level.
James Harris
And talking of myself as a meta innovator feel can give an example where now will bring up sports and why usually is distinguished from entertainment.
And people say sports and entertainment, as in sports your player or your team may not always win. If you're cheering someone against an opponent then it doesn't help your mood to watch that person get crushed, and lose, right?
So consider tennis, where tennis champions tend to win until they are against other tennis champions, which means they win a LOT. And upsets are a big surprise when lower ranked players manage to win, but of course do happen, as is sports.
Now in entertainment, like in science fiction or more recently in comic book movies, the protagonists tends to win too! But is writers making it happen of course, but now you can see why fits mood of audience. And sometimes they DO lose in some way, right? Like "Star Wars", was followed by "Empire Strikes Back", but heroes win out in "Return of the Jedi".
Have seen situations where some decry the relentless winning, and talk about being "more realistic" where we can study from the meta level, which is like saying tennis should be "more realistic" and tennis champions should lose more! But of course they would not, so functionally is like saying should follow tennis players who lose more. But most of audience prefers to follow those who win more.
And predictably these attempts, where can think of a few but think it better not to call them out here specifically as is just opinion, failed with audiences. Having more depressive scenarios as if more realistic is not correct. It's simply following less successful imaginary people, where you can, and of course there are fans at all levels, simply follow less successful in the regular world too, in sports. It's like saying that fans should group away from the best players to the middle ones. Why? Fans can go where they want.
Now if you're an entertainment executive, I just explained how you can process if some excited writers come to you with what they think is a brilliant approach to making movies or television shows that are more, they think, like real life, when of course that is not true!
And how do we know? Because we just studied entertainment, from the meta level.
James Harris
Saturday, June 04, 2016
Embrace of the real
On an embrace of the real
Each shining new day
A day to rise or fall
We contemplate or not
Drink it in or not
A Sun shining or not at all
A poem I wrote this morning as a tweet, and it's exactly 140 characters which fascinates me as constrains form. So yeah of course that limits what can be done in that space.
Will include my tweet as well along with another tweet I retweeted before I wrote it as quite simply? I like the look.
Each shining new day
A day to rise or fall
We contemplate or not
Drink it in or not
A Sun shining or not at all
A poem I wrote this morning as a tweet, and it's exactly 140 characters which fascinates me as constrains form. So yeah of course that limits what can be done in that space.
Will include my tweet as well along with another tweet I retweeted before I wrote it as quite simply? I like the look.
On an embrace of the real— James Harris (@jstevh) June 4, 2016
Each shining new day
A day to rise or fall
We contemplate or not
Drink it in or not
A Sun shining or not at all
— Tim Kopra (@astro_tim) June 4, 2016
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)