To be honest, the main thing preventing me from setting up a traditional blog is that I get more attention when I post on social media, and I like attention. If I could be guaranteed a certain number of readers for each post, I'd do it.
As an older American, I only watched the original three Star Wars and in the theaters each time. I watched Andor after listening to Marc Maron's WTF interview with Tony Gilroy.. After the fourth episode I went back to watch 'Rogue One' which was OK but having watched the full season of Andor, I felt it better. Gilroy said there were about 180 speaking roles over the 12 episodes which was amazing. I was sad to see the end with the realization I now have to wait another year for the second season. I still don't know if I will watch the six episodes that sandwich the original three.
As you're aware, but others may not be, what's missing from the talented and well-intentioned Scalzi (always) in terms of analysis is amply present in Doctorow at Pluralistic. Along with concrete suggestions as to what might actually be done about it, even in the current political climate.
"Could the West have realistically avoided any of this?" I guess it depends on what you think is "reasonable."
Could we have reacted to the negative supply shock of higher energy prices by increasing savings and investment, not in redirecting investment?
Could we have reacted to the positive supply shock of China opening up and the long term decrease in costs of international communications and transportation) by NOT overvaluing the dollar?
Could we have found a better way to promote democracy and respect for human rights in the Mideast (and tracking down Osama Ben Laden) than invading Iraq?
Could we have started taxing net emissions of CO2 (what should have been the bottom line of "An Inconvenient Truth") in 2006?
Not really, IMO. A blog is available for view to anyone, just like Twitter. A substack requires a subscription. I'm happy to subscribe for certain content -- here, for example -- but in other cases I'm interested in reading occasional comments or thoughts but wouldn't pay money for that. In my case the distinction is that I would pay for expertise but not punditry. Or maybe it's "punditry by an expert in that field".
One can bear non-paying subscriber on Substack, although you might be excluded from some content. Many of us grew up on the Internet where content, including blogs, was FREE. Brad provided his Grasping Reality blog on that basis for years. I found it roughly as stimulating and addicting as cocaine is reported to be. However, free blogging forces all of the costs of prepping the blog on the content creator. That's economically unsustainable. Only an energetic polymath like Brad can pull that off without their " real" job suffering. The several hundred dollars per year that I currently spend on Substack is worthwhile to me for the chance too read such distinctive voices.
I don't particularly disagree with this. My dividing line, again, is between experts and pundits. I'll pay for the former (as I do here) but not the latter.
Just a note: it does not seem to be true that "[a] substack requires a subscription".
Not only do many substacks offer free subscriptions, but many also make their content available entirely without a subscription (though perhaps with a clickbox that says "let me read it first").
In my own case, there are a few stacks that I subscribe to, but many more that I read some amount of without a subscription.
Bill McBride (Calculated Risk) is opening a Substack chat room. He says the Substack app w/ the chat feature is currently only available for iOS, but Android is on the way.
Elon Musk vacations with Murdoch, hangs with Thiel, and has quickly demonstrated a willingness to spread propaganda and hate. So even though I like EV's and rocketships, it is apparent to me that Musk is not someone we should defer to moderation of content or discussions, much less support financially.
I hope that you can work with your buddies to create a common Substack area especially for chatting. The more high profile Substack contributors, the better. The user cost should be minimal since subscribing to multiple $10/mo Substacks quickly gets expensive for most. Perhaps allow moderators to be paid in free subscriptions to the spoke Substacks.
Members need not go cold turkey on Twitter, but at least put their tweet thread type contents on the shared Substack Chat, and link to it from Twitter (while Musk allows it). Also, members can pitch their individual 'stacks in the common area.
Are you indeed enamoured by this distinction between human institutions and abstract propositions? Well I am not. A consequentialism without the courage to face its own consequences is a contemptible self-contradiction. Actually existing consequentialism is, by definition, the only consequentialism we have. Once you exclude the untrue Scotsmen from "effective altruism", does anything substantial beyond "altruism" remain?
In this case, we may generously hope that Yglesias is being tendentious. The abstract propositions of epicureanism seem innocuous on the page, but epicureanism was a philosophy most popular among the elite, who historically have used it to rationalize their privileges. Yglesias the philosophy major is surely aware of this. What about fascism? Is it not "certainly true" that people, individually weak, may be strong when they combine together with a common purpose? And does this not seem wholesome, in the abstract? But presumably Yglesias would not draw the same careful distinctions here.
Freedman: Rats, the free part cut off at the good part about planning. Maybe it says something more profound than that the point of land use planning is to increase (by minimizing locational negative externalities, not decrease the value of land. It's sort of like immigration or trade policy in that sense; the point is to increase the incomes/productivity of residents.
From afar, it appears that UK got immigration wrong in the past not by having too much of it, but by not culturally assimilating immigrants which led to the own goal of Brexit, which then somehow led to the rejection by some of the benefits of the free flow of goods and services with Europe.
Okay this is a little off the range: In the spirit of not being a sloucher I propose the following challenge, open anyone to on this string, and Brad of course. Plan is to get my copy of Slouching autographed by The Prof. This would be done by cycling across the three bridges of the Bay Area with a copy of Slouching, a black sharpie and bag of dog biscuits in my pack. Meetup anywhere Brad wants (except top of Diablo). Reactions?
To be honest, the main thing preventing me from setting up a traditional blog is that I get more attention when I post on social media, and I like attention. If I could be guaranteed a certain number of readers for each post, I'd do it.
Yes indeed! Post on social media & link back to the blog seems to be the best we can do right now...
Andor exceeded my expectations.
Mine too, but that was a very low bar at this point in the SWEU.
As an older American, I only watched the original three Star Wars and in the theaters each time. I watched Andor after listening to Marc Maron's WTF interview with Tony Gilroy.. After the fourth episode I went back to watch 'Rogue One' which was OK but having watched the full season of Andor, I felt it better. Gilroy said there were about 180 speaking roles over the 12 episodes which was amazing. I was sad to see the end with the realization I now have to wait another year for the second season. I still don't know if I will watch the six episodes that sandwich the original three.
It is a mistake to watch anything except Star Wars, The Empire Strikes Back, and Rogue One.
As you're aware, but others may not be, what's missing from the talented and well-intentioned Scalzi (always) in terms of analysis is amply present in Doctorow at Pluralistic. Along with concrete suggestions as to what might actually be done about it, even in the current political climate.
"Could the West have realistically avoided any of this?" I guess it depends on what you think is "reasonable."
Could we have reacted to the negative supply shock of higher energy prices by increasing savings and investment, not in redirecting investment?
Could we have reacted to the positive supply shock of China opening up and the long term decrease in costs of international communications and transportation) by NOT overvaluing the dollar?
Could we have found a better way to promote democracy and respect for human rights in the Mideast (and tracking down Osama Ben Laden) than invading Iraq?
Could we have started taxing net emissions of CO2 (what should have been the bottom line of "An Inconvenient Truth") in 2006?
Would having a platform on Substack count as reviving the traditional blog?
Not really, IMO. A blog is available for view to anyone, just like Twitter. A substack requires a subscription. I'm happy to subscribe for certain content -- here, for example -- but in other cases I'm interested in reading occasional comments or thoughts but wouldn't pay money for that. In my case the distinction is that I would pay for expertise but not punditry. Or maybe it's "punditry by an expert in that field".
One can bear non-paying subscriber on Substack, although you might be excluded from some content. Many of us grew up on the Internet where content, including blogs, was FREE. Brad provided his Grasping Reality blog on that basis for years. I found it roughly as stimulating and addicting as cocaine is reported to be. However, free blogging forces all of the costs of prepping the blog on the content creator. That's economically unsustainable. Only an energetic polymath like Brad can pull that off without their " real" job suffering. The several hundred dollars per year that I currently spend on Substack is worthwhile to me for the chance too read such distinctive voices.
I don't particularly disagree with this. My dividing line, again, is between experts and pundits. I'll pay for the former (as I do here) but not the latter.
Just a note: it does not seem to be true that "[a] substack requires a subscription".
Not only do many substacks offer free subscriptions, but many also make their content available entirely without a subscription (though perhaps with a clickbox that says "let me read it first").
In my own case, there are a few stacks that I subscribe to, but many more that I read some amount of without a subscription.
Thanks. I didn't know that.
Bill McBride (Calculated Risk) is opening a Substack chat room. He says the Substack app w/ the chat feature is currently only available for iOS, but Android is on the way.
Elon Musk vacations with Murdoch, hangs with Thiel, and has quickly demonstrated a willingness to spread propaganda and hate. So even though I like EV's and rocketships, it is apparent to me that Musk is not someone we should defer to moderation of content or discussions, much less support financially.
I hope that you can work with your buddies to create a common Substack area especially for chatting. The more high profile Substack contributors, the better. The user cost should be minimal since subscribing to multiple $10/mo Substacks quickly gets expensive for most. Perhaps allow moderators to be paid in free subscriptions to the spoke Substacks.
Members need not go cold turkey on Twitter, but at least put their tweet thread type contents on the shared Substack Chat, and link to it from Twitter (while Musk allows it). Also, members can pitch their individual 'stacks in the common area.
Yup, 'The Return of the Jedi' was only interesting to find out the familial relationships and the neat Jabba the Hut scene.
Are you indeed enamoured by this distinction between human institutions and abstract propositions? Well I am not. A consequentialism without the courage to face its own consequences is a contemptible self-contradiction. Actually existing consequentialism is, by definition, the only consequentialism we have. Once you exclude the untrue Scotsmen from "effective altruism", does anything substantial beyond "altruism" remain?
In this case, we may generously hope that Yglesias is being tendentious. The abstract propositions of epicureanism seem innocuous on the page, but epicureanism was a philosophy most popular among the elite, who historically have used it to rationalize their privileges. Yglesias the philosophy major is surely aware of this. What about fascism? Is it not "certainly true" that people, individually weak, may be strong when they combine together with a common purpose? And does this not seem wholesome, in the abstract? But presumably Yglesias would not draw the same careful distinctions here.
Freedman: Rats, the free part cut off at the good part about planning. Maybe it says something more profound than that the point of land use planning is to increase (by minimizing locational negative externalities, not decrease the value of land. It's sort of like immigration or trade policy in that sense; the point is to increase the incomes/productivity of residents.
From afar, it appears that UK got immigration wrong in the past not by having too much of it, but by not culturally assimilating immigrants which led to the own goal of Brexit, which then somehow led to the rejection by some of the benefits of the free flow of goods and services with Europe.
Okay this is a little off the range: In the spirit of not being a sloucher I propose the following challenge, open anyone to on this string, and Brad of course. Plan is to get my copy of Slouching autographed by The Prof. This would be done by cycling across the three bridges of the Bay Area with a copy of Slouching, a black sharpie and bag of dog biscuits in my pack. Meetup anywhere Brad wants (except top of Diablo). Reactions?
There's 8 toll bridges in the Bay Area. Counting only 3 is kinda north bay snobby. Just sayin. 😉
Whenever I read John Scalzi, I think, I should read more John Scalzi.
Sci if readers who aren’t familiar with him should seek his works out.