In reality Luddites did not oppose technology per-se, but the dramatic worsening of the working conditions in the factories, reduced wages and concentration of the income to the capital holders. These are the same problems that should be addressed contemporarily.
They initially tried to address these by political means. But with that failing they moved to sabotage and violence.
This is coming for everyone's jobs. It'd be possibly an OK or good thing after some adaptation if I didn't suspect that the people with power during this transition were nihilists or people who's mission in life is to be relatively rather than absolutely well off. If everyone can have what they need they will not feel important enough
Not accurate. TM already had a lock the market before LN acquired them. In fact, LN created their own ticketing platform to compete with TM... and failed miserably.
Take a look at the largest venues in the country. Most of them aren't owned by LN, but they still use TM for ticketing. If anything, TM has helped LN to acquire more venues than the other way around. In general, TM has a much more dominant share of the ticketing business than LN has of the venue or promotion business.
OP asked why nobody has beaten TM. The answer cannot be "because they have a vertically integrated monopoly" because in the past that wasn't true and nobody was able to beat them then either.
Even if a venue isn't owned my LN, they still use TM for ticketing because otherwise their booking agents won't be able to get the Clear Channel artists to come. It has been that way for a LONG time. Before LN, it was CC.
Source: I used to own a night club in San Francisco.
"Founded in 1996 by Robert F. X. Sillerman as SFX Entertainment, the company's business was built around consolidating concert promoters into a national entity to counter the oversized influence of ticket behemoth Ticketmaster."
It's kind of amazing how the present distorts our perspective of the past.
It was formed to compete with TM, because TM had too much market power. In other words, you didn't need to use TM if you were using CC from a business/monopoly standpoint --in fact it was against their interests. However, CC/LN often went with TM anyway because it worked out better for them.
No, LN was spun off from CC and after years of trying & failing to compete with TM, then acquired TM.
The point being: TM already had the market power before LN was on the scene, and all of LN's market power wasn't enough to get people to use their ticketing platform instead of TM. Saying LN is the reason everyone uses TM is very much getting it backwards.
So LN's market share in venues and acts is smaller than TM's market share for ticketing, and LN tried to use their venue/promotion business to launch their own ticketing platform and couldn't compete with TM... but right now the only reason people use TM is because of LN?
Surely, if LN's dominance is what is needed to lock up the ticketing market, LN's ticketing platform should have been able to compete with TM quite well, and TM should have been struggling to succeed in the ticketing market prior to being acquired by LN.
It's not that LN owns the venues, but that the venues have an exclusive ticket agreement with TM. So if you want to perform at this venue, you must sell via TM. When my startup was trying to compete, we found that basically every single outdoor amphitheater had exclusive ticket rights. This makes stuff like crowdfunding a concert impossible
I don't know, but HN has clearly begun to skew more and more to the "left" (in the modern, American sense of the term) over the past few years. I'd say it's been really marked over about the past 2 years. Why that is, is hard to say.
While it doesn't explain why, the observation of Robert Conquest's 2nd Law of Politics does seem to be correct: "Any organization not explicitly right-wing sooner or later becomes left-wing."
going by that post it seems that for some reason she thinks it is appropriate to use the word "Fuck" on stage and inappropriate for people to complain about it.
This is a company whose presentations have used the word “fuck” on more than one occasion, who just today have released a blog entry that discusses their chatrooms and how often the word “fuck” was said, including how often by their Hubot, (“our robot has something of a potty mouth”), so if that was the claim, I think she’d feel justified in expressing a little surprise.
> This is a company whose presentations have used the word “fuck” on more than one occasion
Hey I understand your position, but she is criticising the "bullies" (whom I gather are audience members) in that statement, not the company.
The irony of this is she goes on to mention Adria Richards who became infamous for tweeting the private conversation of two people whose language was also inappropriate, and suggesting it was a difficult time for Richards.
So I am confused by the messaging in the post, it is ok to say "Fuck" but wrong to criticise someone for saying it, but it is ok to criticise someone for innuendo for forking a repo.
Umm, conversations in a public meeting which are easily overheard by others are not private conversation.
To have a reasonable expectation of privacy in an otherwise public area, one must make some sort of effort to establish that privacy. For example, by speaking so softly that no one else can listen in without technological means, or move to a room with solid doors and walls so that the eavesdropper must place one's ear against the door to hear the conversation.
This applies everywhere. Homes are considered private areas, and having sex is (usually) considered a private act. But if I hear my neighbors talking dirty while having sex, then if I want I can complain to them or tell others about the problem, even if they mean for it to be a private act in a private area.
You see this breakdown of public/private conversations all the time. Someone talking on a cell phone while on a bus may consider the conversation private, but if 1/2 the bus can hear the speaker, it's certainly not private even if the custom is to ignore the speaker.
That post is more about audiences who, when men and women talk and cuss the same, are shocked, wilting like flowers. They expect the women to be sweet, dainty and lady-like.
The whole of: When men cuss on stage, they're commanding. When women cuss on stage, they're unprofessional.
> That post is more about audiences who, when men and women talk and cuss the same, are shocked, wilting like flowers. They expect the women to be sweet, dainty and lady-like.
I understood the context may be that or made out to be that, but in reality it isn't really appropriate for anyone. I am sure men have been criticised for the same thing, so I do not believe it is some sexiest ideology. It may be that some people believe that speakers should be professional.
Well, "fuck" is okay too (for some people apparently). As in "Fuck you, pay me" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jVkLVRt6c1U (not by anyone from github, but still industry related).
Awesome, I must thank you for that link. I've thought about it several times over the past year, but could not remember his name or the video's title. So, thank you.
