|
About This Author
I am SoCalScribe. This is my InkSpot.
|
Blogocentric Formulations
Logocentric (adj). Regarding words and language as a fundamental expression of an external reality (especially applied as a negative term to traditional Western thought by postmodernist critics).
Sometimes I just write whatever I feel like. Other times I respond to prompts, many taken from the following places:
 "The Soundtrackers Group" 
"Blogging Circle of Friends "
"Blog City ~ Every Blogger's Paradise"
"JAFBG"
"Take up Your Cross"
Thanks for stopping by! 
Previous ... - 1- 2 ... Next
August 14, 2018 at 8:06pm August 14, 2018 at 8:06pm
| |
This article blew my mind. When I think of venture capitalism, I still (apparently naively) imagine the deals like we see on Shark Tank every week. An enterprising entrepreneur has a good idea and some investor comes along and offers them $100,000 for 20% of the company. Or, once the venture has a proven track record of success, maybe it even goes as high as a few million dollars for a smaller percentage of the company. I truly had no idea that these "mega-rounds" of financing (those that raise over $100 million) existed with any degree of regularity, let alone were so prevalent. It's truly crazy to think that through July of this year, there have been a whopping 268 mega-rounds of financing secured. That's well over $26.8 billion (with a B) worth of investment in startup companies so far this year! The article notes that these mega-rounds are occurring with such frequency now that the industry is considering redefining the term to only include investment rounds that top $200 million. 
That's a pretty far cry from my modest little fantasy of coming up with a cool product and having some investor be like, "Yeah, I'll give you a million bucks to get this venture off the ground!" Apparently I should be aiming much, much higher! 
What this article really got me thinking about, though, is what that kind of money means for a startup. As noted philosopher rapper Notorious B.I.G. once said, "Mo money, mo problems" and I think that characterization is apt here. Sure, having $100 million in seed money will ensure your company at least has a reasonable opportunity for success. Depending on the type of business you're operating, that could keep you in the black for years and years while you find your footing in the market. But at what cost? I'd be willing to bet that someone investing nine figures in your new company probably isn't going to be satisfied with, say, 10% ownership. I'd be willing to bet those bids come with significant strings, like controlling interest... if not in equity then at least in seats on the board of directors. Similarly, I'd also be willing to bet that an investor pouring that much money into a venture is probably going to be much more hands-on in terms of checking on their investment: more reporting, more meetings, more input on how the company moves forward.
On the other hand, having access to that kind of capital comes with a lot of advantages. As the article notes, startups with that kind of cash can afford to hire better, more desirable candidates with competitive salaries. The company itself can explore different marketing strategies, including operating at a calculated loss early on in order to build brand awareness and loyalty. And your employees don't have to spend so much time worrying about the health of the organization or its ability to endure if you know you're fully funded for the next 12-24+ months.
The other interesting aspect to this is that investors seem to have all but given up on worrying about another bubble. When the tech bubble (along with the real estate bubble) burst in the 2000s, investors became wary of putting a lot of money into companies after watching several of them skyrocket up to market valuations of over $1 billion and then crater in a matter of weeks. That sense of wariness seems to have completely abandoned a lot of investors. For example, Tencent Holdings (China's approximate equivalent to Google), has already participated in more than 30 mega-rounds in 2018. For those of you keeping score at home, that means Tencent has, in the first half of this year alone, spent more than $3 billion investing in unproven startups. 
It'll be interesting to see how this current flurry of investing activity plays out. Maybe it'll create a whole new era of corporate growth and affluence, anchored by remarkable advancements in technology. Then again, maybe the bubble will burst again and these investors will be out the massive amounts of money they invested. I guess only time will tell. Until then... I have a great idea for a company. Does anyone know who I need to call to get the ball rolling on them sending me $100+ million dollars?
|
August 13, 2018 at 11:52pm August 13, 2018 at 11:52pm
| |
I'll admit that few things brought me as much happiness this weekend than reports that the handful of white nationalist rally members in Washington, D.C. this weekend were absolutely drowned out by several hundred counter-protestors speaking out against their message of white supremacy and racial bias. In the world of John Oliver on Last Week Tonight, "Massive dozens of white nationalists gathered in D.C., where they were met by hundreds of counter-protestors calling them all assholes."
Even better was the news that this was a peaceful protest (and counter-protest), unlike the Charlottesville rally from a year ago when counter-protestor Heather Heyer was killed by a white nationalist demonstrator.
With the recent uprising of nationalist, racially charged, bigoted sentiment out there, I've often wondered if there would ever be a point where we can get back on the right track and start mending wounds and sharing what we have in common rather than focusing on what divides us. I'd like to think that this is the first of many signs that people are finally starting to tire of people who feel emboldened to express this hate openly in the world, but the truth is this could be a one-off event, or a blip on the radar. I certainly hope not.
All I know is that when the "Unite The Right 2" organizers anticipate 400 white nationalists show up and only two dozen actually make an appearance, it brings a smile to my face and gives me hope that we can get past this ugly point in our history.
|
August 12, 2018 at 11:49pm August 12, 2018 at 11:49pm
| |
I'm divided on how I feel about this issue of the New York City Council putting a freeze on any new Uber or Lyft drivers while they study the effects of ride-sharing services on traffic congestion in the city. On the one hand, I know these ride-sharing services are most certainly adding to the traffic in congested areas like Manhattan, and in many cases the excessive competition results in driving down wages for everyone. There was a time when you could make a decent living as a taxi driver, but a lot of studies have shown that there are simply so many drivers on the road in big cities these days, that many of them spend an awful lot of time driving around looking for rides, which is time and mileage they're not getting compensated for. So in those respects, I'm actually for New York studying the issue to see if there's an ongoing concern.
On the other side of the coin, however, ride sharing services are an enormous new industry for people who would otherwise be unemployed. There are a ton of Uber and Lyft drivers out there who lost old jobs and need to make ends meet in the meantime. The old medallion system used for driving yellow cabs in New York meant that someone couldn't just decide to drive a taxi and make a few extra bucks to help out their family. The economy is becoming more and more freelance, and preventing ride-sharing services like these (even with their problems) is curbing a potential source of revenue for people who need work and/or a job with flexible hours they can set themselves. Additionally, there have been specific studies in New York that show Uber and Lyft are addressing a specific need in the outer boroughs and low-income or high-crime neighborhoods where yellow cabs don't bother to cruise around looking for people to flag them down. So limiting the number of people who can drive for ride-sharing services might have an adverse effect on people on the outskirts of the city or in bad areas who rely on the ability to summon a driver if they're not near public transit or in an area where yellow cabs regularly cruise around. So in those respects, I'm against this legislation.
The tiebreaker for me, then, is the way this is being implemented. You don't actually need to freeze ride-sharing services to study traffic patterns. How many new drivers are on the road this year is irrelevant to a scientific study, which would most likely take the hard data from all of last year (rather than making estimates about the future of this year), and compare it to years before Uber and Lyft were in existence. There have also been rumors that this legislation was motivated, at least in part, by the recent suicides of half a dozen taxi drivers who blamed financial hardship as the reason for their distress, and lobbying on behalf of the cab companies.
Ultimately, I think studying the effects of ride-sharing services on local economies is important work. I think it needs to be done so we can fully understand the impact on our communities. But I also believe in a more or less free market, and in the freedom of people to find and work jobs that fit their needs and lifestyles. So I can't say that I'm a big fan of this legislation at a time where they haven't even determined what detrimental effects there are. If this legislation were in response to a valid study that found, yes, ride-sharing services are ultimately bad for local economies, then fine... let's put this legislation in place. But to pass this legislation before that evidence is there... well, that sounds an awful lot like they're hurting one industry and advantaging another before they even know if that's the right course of action. 
|
August 10, 2018 at 6:54pm August 10, 2018 at 6:54pm
| |
I'm fascinated by the concept of "white hat" hackers. While black hats seek to hack for personal gain (stealing credit card information to buy things, stealing personal information to sell, etc.), white hats are "ethical hackers" who seek to use their skills to positive ends (working with a company or agency to point out vulnerabilities in their security, etc.). I've read a couple books by Kevin Mitnick over the years (if your interested in hacking and haven't read Ghost in the Wires yet, I highly recommend it), and think it's really interesting to see these savvy techno-wizards using their skills to help make things better rather than tearing them down or gaining personally. A lot of white hats happen to be former black hats who through altruism or a plea agreement, have decided to work for the other side.
I didn't even realize DefCon was a thing, but I'm glad they have white hats working on figuring out potential vulnerabilities in our electronic voting systems. It's kind of a double-edged sword, though, because while you may learn about vulnerabilities that need to be fixed, you also realize how easy your security was to beat in the first place and can sometimes make a target out of you by those looking to flex their muscles and show off. Remember Todd Davis, the LifeLock CEO guy? After he participated in an ad campaign where he posted his real Social Security Number for the world to see and claiming their service's identity theft protections were unbeatable... well, he had his identity stolen 13 times over the following year, mostly from hackers who just wanted to prove they could beat an unbeatable system.  Never underestimate people's ability to rise to a challenge!
What's a little worrisome in this article are the ways in which the white hats were able to exploit voting systems. Especially the Danish researcher referenced in this article who just last year was able to take control of a touchscreen voting machine remotely from up to 1,000 feet away. I know that the whole paper ballot hanging chad thing was a big deal in the 2000 presidential election, but the idea of debating how thoroughly punched or marked a piece of paper is seems almost quaint compared to the idea that you could literally steal someone's vote by remotely operating their voting machine from a laptop in your car across the street. 
It'll be interesting to see what happens with the voting machines in the 2018 midterm elections coming up in just a few short months. I don't know if they're going to have all this hacked voting machine stuff sorted out by then... but I do know that if they don't, I'm probably going to request a paper ballot. Our district has been singled out for being one of the swing districts where our incumbent Republican congressman has a fair shot at being ousted by his Democratic challenger, so this election is far too important to trust to a machine if it has a known security vulnerability that could be exploited.
|
| |
The new industry known as "text analytics" has been making a lot of waves lately. It mostly involves the use of sophisticated algorithms to parse the actual construction of language in a collection of data. Investors, for example, can comb through dense public filings or press releases to find subtle changes in language that might give them a clue as to how a company's fortunes may be faring. If they spot unusually carefully crafted language in a statement about risk disclosures, for example, that could indicate that a company is concerned about an issue and trying to minimize it for the public. Similarly, some companies have used text analytics to scour electronic communication (email and messaging apps like Slack), where algorithms can evaluate based on the language patterns and even use of emojis how emotionally healthy its employees are.
I've long been a proponent of not putting anything on your work computer that you don't want the company to know. Keystroke loggers, remote viewing, and other capabilities allow companies to see an awful lot of what their employees put out into the electronic ecosystem. But this takes things to a whole new level that's kind of crazy when you think about it. My company uses Slack, for example, to communicate quickly with people in our rather large office. It's easy to send a direct message to someone to ask if they're in their office, or so assistants can coordinate meeting times, lunches, etc. It's also where a lot of employees, myself included, will vent when we're frustrated. We message coworkers and say things like, "Can you believe our boss just threw you under the bus in that meeting? What a jerk!" Or, "Did you see the new corporate policy from HR? Yeah, like that's actually going to fix the problem." Now imagine you get called into the CEO's office not because you called your boss a jerk or disagreed with the new HR policy... but because an algorithm determined that you're exhibiting a high amount of negativity and are therefore a negative influence on the morale of the company.
Ultimately, I'm not sure this will ever be a major privacy problem (any more than privacy is already a problem in the workplace)... like so many of the analytical tools available today, just because a company can dig into their employees' electronic communications doesn't necessarily mean they do or even have the time to monitor everything that happens without an actual issue to investigate. It would be an enormous use of resources to constantly be monitoring everything an employee emails, chats, etc. for any little thing... but it's also easy to see how this technology could be used in the context of layoffs or personnel issues to justify a whole range of actions. And that's the part of this that makes me nervous. We live in a world that's increasingly restrictive in terms of employee rights, where corporations are routinely consolidating power and pursuing wealth at all costs. Employees turnover is through the roof compared to previous generations, and I worry that technology like this could make it even easier for companies to jettison employees without fairly compensating them.
In the old days, layoffs often came with some sort of severance package and ample warning to make sure the employee had time to land on his or her feet. These days, it's not uncommon to find out you're out of a job only on the day they escort you from the building. And it's not uncommon for companies to look for ways to save money by terminating people for cause instead of laying them off. What if a disreputable company decided to save money on severance and unemployment claims by firing half its staff "for cause" rather than laying them off? They could just pull up your chat history, or run an algorithm on your emails and say, "Whoa, see right there? You're clearly disgruntled and exhibiting hostile tendencies toward that coworker of yours or the company in general. We have the right to fire you for cause with no severance or unemployment benefits."
Maybe all of this seems a little Orwellian, but with two layoffs under my belt and having worked for more than one company that has flat-out screwed its employees over in pursuit of profits, it's hard for me to imagine there won't be some enterprising company somewhere that takes all it can learn from analyzing patterns in your communication and applying it to some sort of assessment about what kind of employee you are. It's bad enough that a company can read your electronic correspondence; it's a little terrifying that there are tools out there that allow them to infer your state of mind or your level of loyalty to the company while you wrote them.
|
| |
If you're not familiar with MoviePass, it's a pretty remarkable service. When it first started, the idea was that you can go to a theater and see as many movies as you want, for only $9.95 a month. If that deal seems like it's too good to be true, it turns out that it actually was. MoviePass has had a rocky past few years as it's struggled to find a way to become profitable.
At first, I assumed the company was subsidizing the movie tickets as a loss-leader in order to gather data to sell to the studios. Unlike the studios' current generalized methods of getting demographic data, if you have someone with a profile buying tickets on an app, that's an immense amount of data you could provide. You would know who sees movies, how often they see them, what times of day they're going, when they're inclined to see another movie, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. That now doesn't appear to be the case, though, because the company has desperately been trying to find a way to make the company profitable where ticket sales are concerned.
As of December 2016, MoviePass had 20,000 subscribers. In August 2017 they switched to the popular $9.95/month subscription which allowed you to see one movie per day, which also saw their subscriber base exponentially increase. They had 600,000 subscribers by October 2017, one million subscribers by December 2017, two million by February 2018, and three million by June 2018. So they grew fast; much faster than the company anticipated. Since then, MoviePass has tried a variety of different strategies to tweak their pricing, including:
 Eliminating IMAX, 3D, and other premium format screenings
Only allowing subscribers to see each movie once
Surge pricing (i.e., additional fees) for in-demand movies
Restricting which theaters subscribers can go to
Requiring subscribers to take photos of their movie tickets and submit them
Implemented and subsequently reversed price changes repeatedly
Each time they make one of these changes, they email their subscribers and say, "We're so sorry for all of the problems with the app (they also have frequent technical issues) and we'll fix them. By the way, here's how we're going to change your membership." And now, this latest announcement from MoviePass is that they're now limiting users to no more than three movies per month.
I'm a MoviePass subscriber and the reason I'm writing about them today is not because I want to bash a company who's clearly financially struggling to make things work, but rather to point out all the ways to not go about righting the ship. And that mainly revolves around not frustrating your existing customers with constant changes to the user experience. I get that they grew too fast; they never expected to have three million subscribers at this point, and if every one of those subscribers saw two movies a month, it would cost them about $30 million per month. But they have just changed this so often that they now appear messy, disorganized, and desperate.
My wife and bought an annual subscription, so there's very little effect on us (short of the company filing bankruptcy, which is a distinct possibility), but most people are on a monthly subscription so every single month they have a new set of rules and guidelines they have to follow. You literally have to plan your movie-going trips by checking the app, making sure the movie isn't blocked out, and jumping through whatever new hoops the company has decided you have to jump through in order to use the service. It's no surprise that the more conspiracy-minded users are convinced that the company is intentionally trying to make it difficult to use their service so they can save money on movie tickets. Personally, I'm more inclined to think they're just really inept at fixing the problem of too much growth too fast.
I sympathize with their plight, but I think MoviePass needs to pick a course of action and stick with it. Their stock has cratered from $48 per share a month ago to $0.09 per share today as a result of all this tumult and frantic changes. They raise the price to $14.95 a month and then a week later reverse it back to $9.95 a month when they get complaints. They're letting customers lead them around by the nose and their reactive responses aren't doing them any favors. What they really need to do is figure out at what price point the service hits their profit goals. If it's $14.95 instead of $9.95 and only a max of one movie a week, then state that clearly and stick with it regardless of how many people complain.
It might be too late, though. Instead of a carefully implemented plan that loses some subscribers (which they probably need to have happen), they're instead hemorrhaging subscribers who have become so frustrated with the service that they'd rather not deal with it at all. It wouldn't surprise me at all if MoviePass declares bankruptcy in the next few weeks or months... so I guess they only thing I can really do at this point is make sure I see as many movies as possible until then, right?
|
| |
It's amazing to me how the Trump Administration seems to be on the wrong side of history in just about every action they take. Pulling out of the Paris climate accords, supporting tax breaks for billionaires and voter suppression, doubling down on old criminal justice policies that have been proven ineffective, removing protections for nature preserves and refusing to enforce consumer protections and banking statutes designed to make sure the market recession from ten years ago doesn't repeat itself, starting trade war which will end up costing us all more in the long run... I know I'm pretty liberal in my views and there are obviously people who support some (or even all) of this agenda, but I truly believe he's setting us back years or even decades in so many ways.
This article is about the Trump Administration trying to roll back fuel standards. The current goal is to reach an average of 54.5 miles per gallon (MPG) fleet-wide by 2025. This number is in large part set by California, which encourages very ambitious fuel standards that the car companies usually try to comply with because California is such a large car market. Other states have other standards, but that leaves car companies with the choice of making different vehicles for different state markets, or trying to comply with the highest standards and selling to all the states.
When Trump won the election, the car companies went to him expecting a sympathetic ear. They told him that 54.5 MPG was just too much and that maybe there was some way to give them a little bit of a break? In true Trump fashion, he's not just trying to adjust the numbers, he'd rather throw out the entire Obama plan (because his whole M.O. seems little more than "do the opposite of what Obama did no matter how little sense it makes") and basically make it so that the car companies don't have to make any efforts to create cleaner running, more fuel efficient vehicles.
What really galls me about this are three things. First, Republicans are supposed to be the party of pro business, pro capitalism, etc. So in theory they should want competitive car companies who are always striving to create newer, better, and more desirable vehicles (and make no mistake, fuel efficiency is a major area of concern for car buyers)... but they support a policy that encourages these companies to be as noncompetitive as possible? Second, it's clearly the wrong thing for the environment. We all know cars and our reliance the larger issue of our reliance on fossil fuels is not good for the planet... but they support a policy that encourages these companies to not make more environmentally-friendly cars? And third, Republicans are supposed to be all for states' rights over the federal government stepping in and telling the states how to conduct their business. Apparently except when it's a law they don't like. They're all for states' rights when it comes to restrictive abortion laws or unrestricted gun laws... but when a state wants to set its own fuel standards? Time for the government to step in and tell the states they can't make their own rules. 
To paraphrase this article, it said that the car companies initially asked the Trump Administration to revisit the standards to "get more flexibility in meeting these aggressive goals," but that the White House instead opted to go so far in that direction that they're actually at risk of hurting the companies more than helping them. A Ford spokesperson explicitly said, "We're not asking for a complete rollback" but that's exactly what the Trump Administration is doing, which could potentially create different fuel standards for different states and would create a regulatory nightmare. In the words of Dan Becker, director of the Safe Climate Campaign at the nonprofit Center for Auto Safety, "What they didn't know is, when they asked Trump to help them start rolling these standards down the hill, that he would totally disconnect the brakes."
Which, I suppose, is ultimately the lesson of making a deal with the devil... the devil in this case being an inexperienced administration with its only guiding principle being to completely tear down any and every bit of progress made in the last eight years. Whether we're talking about international relations like the Iran nuclear deal and trade, or national policies like immigration and reshaping the judiciary, when we elect a "change" candidate (especially one who doesn't feel the least bit constrained by tradition, civility, or bipartisanship), sometimes that's exactly what we get, and it's way more than we bargained for.
|
| |
Written for "Note:
48-HOUR CHALLENGE : Media Prompt
Deadl..."
While this isn't my favorite song of theirs per se (I'm still partial to "Some Nights"), "Carry On" captures why I like the band fun. so much. They've got a fairly unique sound, good lyrics, and an overall upbeat sound that you don't find in a lot of other indie bands. I'm a little bummed that they haven't put out an album since Some Nights way back in 2012 (which is the album this song is from). They briefly mentioned working on a new album, and even played a new song on Jimmy Fallon's late night show in 2014, but that song ultimately went onto lead singer Nate Reuss' debut solo album Grand Romantic. The band claimed they weren't breaking up but rather taking some time to pursue other projects, but that announcement was on their Facebook page back in February 2015 and they've been pretty quiet ever since.
I've always been fascinated by musical artists who jump from project to project. Taking the time to focus on your creative interests is obviously important, but this is just one of so many bands that have a hit or start to take off and then they all go their separate ways to work on something else. Wouldn't you want to keep the success up of the group that broke out and everyone is eagerly following along with, and maybe work on your other passion projects concurrently? But so many of them just full-on put their successful endeavors on hold and change to another project full-time.
It seems to be something fairly unique to musicians too. Maybe that has something to do with the intensity of tour schedules or the cost of recording time or something, because I couldn't imagine Stephen King putting his writing career on hold so he can play his music... or an athlete going, "You know what? I think I need to stop playing baseball for a while so I can focus on golf." Every time they do (*cough* Michael Jordan *cough*), it never seems to go well. Deion Sanders may be the exception, having played both baseball and football for a while, and being halfway decent at both. But for the most part, quitting one thing to do another at the moment where you found success in that first thing seems like a bad idea.
Anyway, I hope fun. gets back together, or otherwise emerges from their hiatus soon because they've got a really great sound and a lot of potential. I'd be excited to see what they do next.
|
| |
I thought this was an interesting back and forth about the ongoing self-publishing versus traditional publishing debate. I'm always fascinated by people who think that a creative pursuit like writing is one-size-fits-all, and that there's a "right" and a "wrong" path to take in pursuit of one's publishing dreams. I also think it's a little bizarre that people can't seem to grasp the general idea of gatekeepers versus mass competition.
In her response to the comments posted here, the original article's author (Alana Semuels) writes, "But the reality is that the traditional model of publishing excludes many authors. Publishing houses accept a tiny fraction of the books pitched to them, and before Amazon, there was really nowhere for unpublished authors to go to get their books to a giant audience of readers. Many of the authors I interviewed for my story said traditional publishing houses had no interest in their work. I am not happy that the publishing industry is struggling, but I do think it could have taken a page from Amazon’s book and innovated some. Rather than just rejecting many of the works that come in, traditional publishing houses could have..."
This is a similar argument that many aspiring screenwriters make in the film and television industry. "Oh, if only there weren't these gatekeepers who refuse to read my stuff!" "Why can't they just give new voices a chance?" Blah blah blah.
First of all, whether people create their art as part of a traditional business structure like publishing houses or movie studios, or strike out on their own to create their art on their terms, there is no right or wrong. Do what you have to do. However, you have to be aware that both of those options have downsides.
If you're someone who's putting your work out there on your own, congratulations! There are no gatekeepers to tell you that you can't. But that also comes with the trade-off that every other person on the planet can do the same thing. You're not the only person self-publishing a book, or uploading a video to YouTube, or blogging on your website. And since you don't have a traditional, established business supporting you, there are issues of visibility. You have to stand out from the crowd to get noticed and become successful, and that's no easy feat.
If you're someone who's seeking a traditional publisher or a movie studio, they are gatekeepers, which means they're not going to buy just anything. It also means they're busy enough that they don't have the time to look at just anything. In most cases, these companies have a very meticulously curated process where they find agents, managers, executives, etc. they trust and focus on finding the majority of their creative works from those sources, while occasionally dipping a toe into the so-called "slush pile" to hopefully stumble across a new voice. But those slush piles are tall and time is scarce. Without spending an absurd amount of money to manage that process, you can't expect a professional company who's actually in the business of producing creative product, to spend all their time considering product.
In the entertainment industry, for example, screenplays take about 2 hours for a professional reader to read and write up coverage (an analysis sent from readers and assistants to executives letting them know the basic story and pros and cons of a script, as well as a recommendation about whether it's worth the executive's time to read). That's four scripts per eight hour work day, per person. That's 20 scripts per week, per person... assuming that person does nothing but read scripts all day. No assistant duties for their boss, no other responsibilities helping the business run... pure read-write up-and-repeat. Want to take a guess how many scripts a place like Disney or Warner Bros. gets a week? Over a hundred. And those are just the ones submitted by agents and managers from established writers. It's estimated that the Writers Guild of America registers over 50,000 screenplays a year. So we're really talking about a thousand scripts a week if these companies were to open the floodgates and consider anything anyone wanted to submit. At 20 scripts per person, that's 50 employees they would need to have reading full time. Even at, say $35,000 a year, that's $1,750,000 a year in salary a company would need to spend on readers alone to properly consider everything that's submitted to them. Which in turn raises the overhead they have to spend, which means they have less money to spend on the actual writers who have projects they like.
I know that kind of went off on a tangent there, but my basis argument is this... know that you have to choose the course of action that's right for you. Also, know that there is no such thing as an unimpeded rise to the top. Stop lamenting how the writing business doesn't work the way you think it should and accept that, with the advent of self-publishing, success now comes in two flavors... you can either continue along the traditional path of trying to impress gatekeepers who will (hopefully) deliver you to an established company that will put your work out and help you rise above the other rabble... or you can be more entrepreneurial by avoiding the gatekeepers and releasing stuff yourself, with the understanding that you have to find your own way to rise above the rabble.
If success as a writer were easy, everybody would be doing it. So go out there and find that success by whatever means necessary, and stop complaining about how "if only it worked differently." There are reasons why things work the way they do, and it's a far more productive use of your time to spend it figuring out how to succeed within that framework than railing against it.
|
| |
I'll be honest, I hadn't even heard of QAnon until this week. But apparently during Trump's rally in Tampa, Florida yesterday QAnon supporters showed up en masse with T-shirts and signs that indicated as much, and now QAnon is the topic du jour on almost every political podcast and news source being put out today.
If you're similarly out of the loop like I am, QAnon is apparently a conspiracy theory movement that centers on someone who goes by the handle "Q" online (short for "Q Clearance Patriot"), who has been posting on 4chan and elsewhere online who claims to have access to classified information that reveals Donald Trump is waging a counter-coup against the Deep State. From what I've been able to briefly research online, some of the claims that Q has made include:
That North Korean dictator Kim Jong-Un is a puppet ruler installed by the CIA
That former DNC chairman Debbie Wasserman-Schultz hired the El Salvadorian MS-13 gang to kill DNC staffer Seth Rich.
That Donald Trump isn't actually under federal investigation, but that it's all a ruse to ferret out the Deep State corruption of our country by a globalist cabal that includes former presidents Obama, Bush, Clinton (and Hillary, of course), and even Bush Sr.
Q also seems to think that Trump is sending them coded messages so they know he's on their side and paying attention. For example, Trump's much-discussed tweet from yesterday was, "..This is a terrible situation and Attorney General Jeff Sessions should stop this Rigged Witch Hunt right now, before it continues to stain our country any further. Bob Mueller is totally conflicted, and his 17 Angry Democrats that are doing his dirty work are a disgrace to the USA!" And Q has claimed that his use of "17 Angry Democrats" is a message to them because Q also happens to be the seventeenth letter of the alphabet, so he's paying attention and reassuring them that he knows they're out there.
Online conspiracy theories are nothing new. They've been around in the dark corners of the internet for as long as the internet has been around. What's particularly concerning, though, is that Q's message seems to be catching on. Celebrities like Roseanne Barr and Curt Schilling have indicated support for Q's claims. In addition to them showing up en masse at the Tampa rally, an armed man in an armored truck blocked a bridge near the Hoover Dam in June to demand the release of classified information that Q claimed the government was withholding. Online users are showing up looking for signs of the conspiracy wherever Q mentions there's some perceived illicit activity, including at Michael Avenatti's office (Stormy Daniels' attorney).
In a world where things like Pizzagate happen (that pizza place that was assaulted by a man with an AR-15 because the conspiracy theorists claimed that Hillary Clinton had an underground child sex ring operating out of the basement), I don't think we need any more people propagating these crazy, unsubstantiated theories and inciting people's fear and resentment and rage. And what's really terrifying, as the article points out, is that since the actual claims being espoused aren't true, Q's followers continue to become more and more frenzied, more and more determined to ferret out this conspiracy that doesn't exist... and where does that end? Can it even end when people are waiting for a revolution that will never come because the revolution doesn't actually exist?
|
Previous ... - 1- 2 ... Next
© Copyright 2024 Jeff (UN: jeff at Writing.Com). All rights reserved.
Jeff has granted InkSpot.Com, its affiliates and its syndicates non-exclusive rights to display this work.
|
