…are you serious?

There would be so much data in understanding people’s light usage. For example, you could figure out how late or early people get up, number of people living in a house, how crowded the house is, how many lights are used per room, etc etc. it would be a gold mine of information.

Let’s say you’re a home automaton designer. You want to design devices to be used in the home, but in order to design such devices, you need enough of a stockpile of user data. This lightbulb data would be incredible valuable.

You can probably even analyse the data and determine things like whether someone is watching tv late at night.

From a nefarious view, how valuable would this data be to robbers and thieves?

Hmmm. If abuse happens, is the right idea to say that “I don’t need this community”?

I’m not sure how that HackerNews comment helps in the slightest. If my university has an obscure basket weaving community and people are getting abused in that community, should I just say “Eh we don’t actually need a basket weaving community”.

It’s also amusing to me that a commenter on a relatively obscure and niche website is complaining that that don’t need (or care about abuse that transpired on) a niche community from another website. And then this comment is echoed in yet another niche community.

I think people really missed my point, and thought I was somehow arguing in favour of poor working conditions.

My point was that the Lemmy response that “well why doesn’t the boss do this?” is not the right negotiation tactic.

The right negotiation tactic is, for example, to argue that it’s in the benefit of the company and society to improve working conditions. For example, you argue that by allowing remote working, you are encouraging not only a happier and more productive environment, but you are widening access and better able to recruit the top people.

There are lots of ways to argue for better conditions. The reaction of “well the boss doesn’t do it so I won’t either” is not a great tactic. If the boss does put in crazy hours, where does that leave your negotiation stance?

As much as I love these arguments, they don’t solve anything and can make things a lot worse.

A lot of companies have bosses who are putting in significant hours. They sometimes do this because they have the income and familial situation to support it. Sometimes the bosses have no families, or have nannies, or are not the main caretaker. Sometimes they just have “no life”.

Japan is a good example. Incredibly long working hours and incredibly work-centric culture at all levels.

The way to argue better working conditions isn’t to point fingers at other people and ask “well why aren’t they also having to suffer like me?”.

Women also make up 50% of PC video game players and 54 percent of mobile game players.

I find a lot of these figures really hard to believe, to be honest.

Looking at the link, there is little I can find about their methodology.

I haven’t read the replies but there was a very interesting episode by Derek Thomson’s Plain English podcast which I found incredibly interesting.

Derek made the conjecture that we were on a cusp of a big paradigm shift in the Internet.

For the last 20 years, it was essentially about building a consumer basis. So companies like Netflix and Facebook and Amazon did not care about current profits. The point was to just get consumers, drive out the competition, and commandeer the monopoly.

Now and especially post Covid companies like Twitter are realising that this isn’t going to work. The next movement is going to all be about paying models. This is what we’re seeing with Twitter. This is what we’re seeing with OnlyFans or Patreon.

So in light of the above comments, none of this is surprising. The next era will be about paid models of the internet.

I need to find that episode as it was extremely prophetic. It might have potentially been this one https://open.spotify.com/episode/2zRha9y46btKdAfwfHpvQ5?si=_jkP3iX7TXOesHLsoY9Vxw