I have for many years believed this. In practical terms global media is American media. And if press coverage is necessary for cheap costumer awareness, then American companies have the advantage that global media hype them up more than non-american. In before stupid objections, this isn't a law of nature, obviously; there's exceptions to everything.
I don’t like the built-in search either, but I’ve found that the Omnisearch extension works well - been using it for a few years. I pin the “vault search” command to the top of the command palette which, on mobile, is just a down-swipe away.
> True exponential growth is possible, but I suspect is rare, because the expenses can also compound
If you have an exponential (revenues) and another exponential of smaller rate (expenses; assume you have profit) then the difference is still an exponential.
Plot the graph of 2^x - 1.99^x to see what I mean. It stays close to the axis for a while and then suddenly shoots up. Follows the trajectory of quite a few companies now that I think of it.
Im skeptical that positive interaction between teams can exist, other than as positive interaction between their leads. It seems to me that risk/reward for an individual to blame things on a different team it too appealing to pass on.
Or maybe this is how my company has trained me to think. Everything always seems to be a different team's fault
This is why blameless postmortem culture is so critical, because in any large organization there will be blind spots due the challenges of coordinating hundreds or thousands of individuals, so if you want to even have a chance of making things better, you need to be able to talk concretely about what went wrong without getting personal. Eventually accountability does need to happen, but it needs to be grounded in technical reality and enforced by people who know what they're doing. Many organizations don't have such people (or don't have them anymore), which leads to all kinds of distortions and prioritizing covering your ass instead of making good big-picture decisions.
Clear responsibilities between the teams can help. Then you don't need to blame, the blame is in the process. "I'll be blocked on X until Y is implemented, but I can work on Z" rather than "They didn't implement Y so I can't work on X" it's pretty subtle but that's people for you. Wording (a) feels more condusive to the follow up of "or I can help with Y"
It's both a clickbait title and probably true. If the title was 'no evidence for human completion of longest possible contiguous rail journey' would you still think them provincial? Would you still click?
I would argue Monty python is in fact not an exception. Their best sketches are just outstanding, but their median sketches are very unfunny indeed.
The actual exception is e.g. the life of Brian where you have 90 minutes where almost every scene is funny or at least engaging. Compare with e.g. the holy grail where the best 90% is quite good but the rest is... Not...
I think this misses the broader point of how revolutionary they were. They were hugely original and experimental, breaking with a lot of comedy conventions and redefining them. They've been compared to The Beatles for good reason. They were never the same kind of worldwide phenomenon, but they were equally influential.
Sure. They may have had their misses, but the Pythons were exceptional. A classic TV show, two fantastic movies (plus a flawed one), a live stage show that's become a classic — they were among the best of their era, and we're still talking about them.
I find it interesting that you mention red dwarf. As I started reading your comment I thought I'd comment something "i think that's just nostalgia, for example red dwarf is awful but people love it". And then you mention red dwarf.
Eye of the beholder. I personally think Red Dwarf series 1 to 6 was great. It even charts a course of British TV decline. Series 1 and 2, low budget sitcom, class warfare and the loneliness of space. Series 3, more budget, more sci-fi, but similar writing. Series 4 and 5, more budget, more sci-fi, becomes monster of the week, but the character building from the prior series keeps it funny. Series 6, even more budget, they start to explore some more interesting sci-fi themes. This turns out to be popular, so it gets more budget again and moves to BBC 1, more cast etc. Series 7, 8 just urgh, trying to appeal to "mainstream" was stupid because it was already popular enough, it loses the serious side. Everything they've done since then feels like they're trying to force the humour that came naturally before. The actors have aged but the writing didn't mature with them.
I watched some interviews with the cast and they would joke around in the canteen between filming and find their jokes had been overheard and incorporated into the script. It had this realistic dialogue.
This one was made up by someone who has no actual real life experience with alcoholics. In real life you can buy wine for about £1 per liter. Even homeless people can afford several liters per day.
I just checked my local grocery store website. The cheapest wine they have is $4 for 750 mL, and $5 off if you spend $15. So you could buy 4 bottles for $12. That's still $3/L.
But ah, yeah, your point still stands. Wine can be REALLY cheap.
Though back when I worked retail, I only ever had one guy that was always buying lots of wine. The customers that came in frequently to buy alcohol typically bought 12- or 24-packs of cheap beer, though the homeless would buy 40 oz Olde English 800 or the 24 oz Steel Reserve cans.
FWIW, I live in Oregon where hard liquor has to be bought from licensed liquor stores, not grocery stores.
