Idk, but Disaster Girl has apparently made a good deal including a 10 percent cut on any future sales. Not that I think that this NFT has sold again for even near the original price but she will still get “royalties” from any additional sale for the looks of it. Good for her that she used this bubble in time.

I was wondering about that as well. We’ll probably never know. Anyway, I’m glad that her unwanted internet fame in this timeline hasn’t ruined her life and that she seems to have benefited from it instead - at least financially. That’s nice, because she really deserves to be compensated for the joy she brought to the internet over the years.

How time flies. Sorry to break it to you, but Disaster Girl is now 24 and apparently working as a Smart Cities & IoT Analyst at S&P Global. Somehow even Side-Eyeing Chloe is 13 by now…

What do you mean by religion? Halloween is a pagan festival according to Christian standards. Of course, I’d be right there with you when it comes to the fun festivals of pagans, but is that what you mean?

I realize that Halloween is a commercial event, but I think there are other outlets for criticism of capitalism. Things where you can make a difference and at the same time let the children have fun. I don’t think you can change much if you dwell on trivialities that bring people together despite all the commerce. That doesn’t seem to me to be the right approach.

That sounds fun, I imagine it like this:

Dentist in tooth disguise and surrounded by tooth fairies: Please open your mouth.

Patient Jack Sparrow: Arr!

Didn’t even have to check the link to know what it was. Classic.

Back in 2016, I didn’t understand how an extremely wealthy heir to a billion-dollar fortune (and regardless of all his business failures) could present himself as the candidate of the little people. Today, after Trump was president and - of course - only made policy changes for the rich, I understand it even less. What is this photo-op all about? Are there seriously still people who don’t understand that Trump has never represented the middle class - or even the working class? You can’t be serious, dear US citizens.

Absolutely right. But the thing is that many so-called leaders will no longer have a raison d’être if there are no more unnecessary meetings and all that fuss. Many of them do nothing all day but sit in meetings, achieve nothing and still feel very important. That’s the misery of the world of work: it’s not usually the best who get into management positions, it’s not the most qualified and certainly not the ones who work the hardest. It’s the most unscrupulous, those who pass off the work of others as their own, people who would never achieve anything on their own or in a small company that can’t afford to waste salaries on froth-mongers. LinkedIn makes it clear how this all works, I think: there, too, it is not the competent people who really understand their work who have the most success, it is the busybodies, the networkers and narcissists. If the competent people set the tone, there would be no discussion about office duties in an IT company. It’s only held on to so that managers can live out their fantasies of omnipotence and post nonsense on LinkedIn.

Don’t clog the toilets. It’s not the c-suites who have to clean that up.

M.C. Escher would appreciate this.

It’s in a solid state when I see you.

When I was working on data protection issues, I asked a specialist lawyer more than two years ago how something like this could be reconciled with the GDPR. He couldn’t answer the question, but said that with the best will in the world he couldn’t imagine that this would be OK under data protection law. Nevertheless, this approach is now common practice for the vast majority of news sites in Europe and also in the EU, which has strict regulations regarding tracking, at least in theory. I still don’t know the legal details, but at least I know that there are no serious penalties whatsoever if there is no distortion of competition involved - and since none of the news companies would sue another in this matter, this has become common practice even in the EU.

Yes, and while Charles Darrow, who became the first millionaire game inventor due to the game’s success, profited substantially from royalties, Lizzie Magie, the original creator of the game’s concept, sold her patent for just $500 and received no royalties.

Ha, I knew those penguins weren’t trustworthy.

Thank you for your thoughtful reply. I myself worked for a social media company for some time (although more in IT, not in their core business). The success metrics for this company were exclusively followers, likes and so on. There were no other metrics whatsoever.

Wut?

Well, in that regard not too much changed, I think. Record labels always mostly pushed music and artists with mass appeal. They still do but have lost a lot of their power to companies like Spotify, Apple and Google (YouTube). But these players do pretty much the same with their algorithms. So I don’t think that popular music has changed too much. There are still influential companies that can pretty much dictate what people listen to. I still don’t think it has become much worse, since back in the day you weren’t even able to produce an album without a record deal because studio time, distribution and all that was so expensive. Today you can produce everything yourself in your bedroom. Sure, it’s unlikely that you will be very successful marketing your record - but at least it’s somewhat possible.

I don’t think music has gotten any worse. However, it is much easier and cheaper to produce music today: you don’t have to be able to play an instrument and professional production is possible with comparatively inexpensive software on any standard computer. This and also the changes in distribution (no more need for sound carriers, …) have probably led to a lot more music being produced today than in the past. Of course, this does not mean that music has become better as a result, but it also does not mean that it has become worse. You just have to find the gems among the admittedly gigantic amount of junk.

I think the so-called KPIs (Key Performance Indicators) are a major problem of our time, because they are often defined incorrectly or misunderstood. All too often, decision-makers seem to think that the pure number of followers, for example, or engagement metrics such as likes would indicate that an account or post is successful. However, this is often not the case when other important metrics are taken into account. In e-commerce, for example, a large number of followers or high engagement figures in themselves mean nothing at all: it is not uncommon for e-commerce companies to invest a lot of money in social media management and for the KPIs of their accounts to rise accordingly - but still not sell anything via this channel (that means that the investment is not worth it, of course, because the costs are disproportionate to the sales generated; the ROI is often not good at all). I think a similar situation can be assumed for many science accounts on Mastodon, for example. Although the number of followers maybe not very high here because there are less active useres, the quality of comments can still be a lot higher. But unfortunately this cannot be quantified, or at least not easily. I therefore think that everyone should first think about what they want to achieve with their social media accounts. It then makes sense to define suitable KPIs instead of being impressed by what can be considered an indicator of success elsewhere and in a completely different context.