What's been driving me nuts is they took away the ability to toggle comments to the right of the video, so you could scroll them while viewing instead of having comments below the video necessitating scrolling the video out of view while reading comments. I thought that toggle was relatively new too.
You can still do it in YouTube Android app as far as I know. Open video, tap that little empty square in the bottom right corner and your video will be rotated to the horizontal position(view) and then tap that little comments box[0] in the bottom left corner(third icon).
For long, unbroken, takes I would additionally recommend Bi Gan's 2018 film Long Day's Journey into Night whose second part features an hour long take over various open terrain and enclosures. I would recommend it in any case, as it's a beautiful film by a highly creative young director who was inspired by Tarkovsky to become a filmmaker.
I would like to recommend Timecode (2000) [1]. The screen is divided into four quarters, each containing a single 93 minute take, all shot simultaneously. A camera will follow one person into a room and follow another one out, or you end up with multiple cameras showing different angles of the same events, or four completely unrelated events. Careful audio mixing and timing guides your attention.
I saw this one in a theater when it came out. The audio effects were really good. IIRC many scenes were on an open set, in the streets of LA, so the actors and cinematographers had to deal with that in real time.
Thank you! Long Day’s Journey into the Night was the first movie I watch at the cinema after they reopened in 2020.
I knew nothing about it. I was very confused by the first part, but when the second part started and I noticed they weren’t cutting I was locked in like few other times. I had never seen a movie that depicts so well how it feels to dream, and be in a dream.
Agreed! I knew to expect it, but not the slow burn of anxiety and mystery that (for me) resulted from being trapped in that single take as it evolved. Our screening was 2D but I think it was shot in 3D. I wonder if that would make the effect even more pronounced.
I'd also suggest Wittgenstein's
Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus, a seminal work of the logical positivist movement. Influenced by Frege's predicate calculus, the aim of the Tractatus was to determine an isomorphic relationship between language, thought, and external states of affairs. An axiomatic attempt to reveal a potentially ideal logical language, that is not interested in meaning per se, but merely an accurate reflection of the world. A closed system that essentially excludes non-falsifiable metaphysical question. Famously concluding with the instruction: "Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent." Part of Wittgenstein's project, even in its early aggressively logical form, was philosophy as a therapeutic. That is, the metaphysical questions concerning god, being, essence, and forms that had inspired thousands of years worth of fevered conversation, could be finally be quieted. That's not to say they couldn't be meditated on, but were not in the domain of his logical language, and so silence. Again, I think early Wittgenstein sometimes gets misinterpreted, "...therefore one cannot speak" does not, to me, mean that it can't be considered or one must forgo spirituality, just that it couldn't be spoken of within the project of the Tractatus.
Logical empiricism was ultimately a dead end as the criteria for even verifying empirical truth has long been contentious philosophically, and was further critiqued by contemporaries such as Quine who attacked the premise of the analytic/synthetic distinction (think Hume's fork, which Kant tried to solve) and Popper who cited the problem of induction to critique the fundamental premises of the positivists verificationism.
Wittgenstein is an interesting case, as the Tractatus is considered an early work of his, profoundly influential to analytic philosphy at the time, yet his later work, Philosophical Investigations is sometimes seen to retract the dogmatism found in the Tractatus. I tend to take the view that it's a continuation of his thought, rather than a retraction of his earlier work. Crudely, whereas his former thought represented a narrowly axiomatic definition of language and its truth value, PI investigates, among many other ideas, language as an activity, or game, that has meaning dependent on the context of its use, languages as families. Granted, Wittgenstein is a complex thinker and these are simply my interpretations.
It's also curious to note that as positivism was beginning to fall out of favor around the time of the second world war, a continental thinker such as Heidegger, whose thought luxuriated in the kind of metaphysical questions the positivists necessarily eschewed, rose to prominence and was infamously sanctioned by the NSDAP to philosophize about their presumed "destiny". Bit of a tangent, but I think the historical context is relevant, as often philosophical movements are birthed from pre- and post-war attitudes.
"While neither Uber nor Grubhub turns a profit delivering food, they are nonetheless venture-backed and raking in mountains of cash: Grubhub reported revenue of $362.98 million during the first quarter this year, a year-over-year increase of more than 12%. Uber Eats’ revenue surged 53% from the same quarter a year ago, to $819 million.
Restaurants, meanwhile, are facing utter devastation. The restaurant industry lost 5.5 million jobs nationwide in April, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. In L.A., the overall unemployment rate now stands at 24%, an increase from 4.7% in February."
So they are comparing revenue with job loss? Those aren't the same class or the same measure... This is just pointless.
Focusing on jobs in the context of gains and losses is a bad idea in general as the only real measure you'd get regarding jobs is 'how many people can support themselves by working' which is the actual real-world impact. And if you want to take survival in to account or basic living standards you could even go a little more abstract and try to report on 'how many people are stuck in poverty'.
It doesn't matter how many jobs you have if people barely get by. Same goes for having less jobs: if people are still doing OK it's not as strong an indicator of anything to report job counts.
Right, but "raking in mountains of cash" is skipping the "in the face of even larger mountains of costs". That's why this article feels deceitful -- using words like "raking in" and "surging" as if revenue before costs means anything at all.
If you lose money on every order, you're not thriving in any sense. You're hoping to thrive some day in the future. The fact that they're venture-backed is irrelevant. Restaurants are backed by investors and bank loans too.
Most growth-oriented tech companies are “unprofitable” in the sense they invest their revenues into growth rather than dividends. This does not mean their core products necessarily make less money than it costs to operate them, without those massive growth investments. The real question people are asking here is: what necessary costs do the food delivery apps actually incur in operating their business that causes them to have such high commissions and fees and still lose money per transaction?
> This does not mean their core products necessarily make less money than it costs to operate them
Generally, yes it does. The up-front costs for building and marketing a platform so that it ultimately becomes profitable are enormous. In today's climate, the idea that a company could just "choose" to be profitable now and in the long-term rather than grow is disingenuous: over the following few years, other companies will eat their lunch and they'll fold.
But with delivery apps, answering your question is not hard. First, paying delivery people is expensive. Crazy expensive. That's obviously the main variable cost. Then there are huge fixed costs with creating and maintaining a multi-platform app, customer service to deal with late/missing/wrong orders, sales and support for restaurants, marketing, and all the normal business stuff.
That's your answer. Food delivery apps aren't spending half their revenue on frivolous side projects like space rockets or cities of the future, or questionably/fraudulently siphoning revenue to a founder. They're just trying to operate as normal businesses, and there's zero evidence to the contrary.
I think you're slightly misrepresenting what the parent comment is saying. You both are right.
Food delivery can be profitable, and they could switch to being profitable if they wanted to. That's what the parent company is saying - they chose not to as they want to operate on the hypothesis that investing in growth as early as possible will put them on an expontential trend in a network effect -based business. Which is true.
However, what you say is right as well. If they switched to a completely profit skimming model, their competitor would keep them in check very fast.
However. what data that I've seen in ridehailing shows, is that if you invest in growth and achieve the 1 or 2 position in volume, you can grow and reap profits simultaneously - at least for some time. It's a massive juggling effort.
Check out the movie with Jon Hamm, Marjorie Prime, screenplay by Jordan Harrison. Without spoiling too much, there's a company that can create holographic projections of loved ones which a woman's family gives to her as a gift which is a hologram of her deceased husband, but when he was a young man. The interesting part, narratively, is that while the holograms are near perfect physical recreations, their personalities and memories must be trained by those who knew them, family/friends which raises the question of how we're perceived in fragmentary and contradictory pieces depending on whose doing the training and the amalgamation of a person that's ultimately constructed from these parallax accounts. The writing is actually quite strong and the only scifi aspect is the holograms so I wouldn't say there's much of scifi crutch. I know it's not PKD and there are similar Black Mirror episodes, but I thought the drama itself was robust and displayed the range of Jon Hamm to be someone other than Don Draper.
It's not bad, but my recommendation is to go into it with the expectation of a Black Mirror episode rather than something you might pay to see in the cinema.
"OpenIndiana obtains its name from Project Indiana, an open source effort by Sun Microsystems (now Oracle Corporation) to produce OpenSolaris, a community developed Unix-like distribution based on Sun Solaris. Project Indiana was led by Ian Murdock, founder of the Debian Linux Distribution."[0]
