You're downvoted but quite accurate. I would like to see this statistic compared against how often the BBC misrepresents news content, and the backflips that come with defining such a metric.
Redis had (may still have?) a billboard on the 101 saying something along the lines of, "my boss really wants to you know we're an AI company", which I thought was pretty funny. Hope this bubble pops soon and we can go back to making products that solve problems for people.
Interrupting a speech? Yes. It demonstrates a lack of maturity, decorum, and is completely unprofessional. Someone who pulls these shenanigans is unworthy of the role they were hired for. This isn't high school anymore. They were hired to perform productive work not be disruptive and play pretend activist.
You lost me at "pretend activist". This person put their job on the line for what they believe in, and in a public enough way that complete strangers are discussing it on the internet. That's real activism.
You are trivializing what they did. This is not that they were in a meeting with the CEO and accidentally spoke interrupting him. They started yelling disrupting the CEOs speech at a large event. Name a single company that wouldn't fire someone for that.
It follows that customisation and individuality are incompatible with good taste. I love the idea that corporate design teams are the first and last word in style
The music in question would be the music of the artist he's interviewing at the time, the absurdity is that you can interview the creator but not show what they've created.
The absurdity is that someone else then the creator can hold the copyright.
In Germany there is a distinction between the selling rights and the creator rights and a company can never be the creator nor can you sell the creator rights.
Good luck with that if you're a new artist looking at a deal. The label will just say "No" and move on.
Artists need exceptional leverage to negotiate a licensing deal instead of a buy out with a reversion option. Most new artists don't have that.
While HN is stuck on its usual obsession with copyright, the reality is the entire ecosystem is bad.
Labels and distributors have the best of all possible worlds. They used to invest in artist development. Now they don't. Most spend very little on promotion, except for household name headliners who are guaranteed earners. Some demand 360 deals where they get a share of all income - sales, plays, touring, and so on.
They're giant corporations run by MBAs whose existence is entirely parasitic.
Why can't an artist or band just make songs and upload them to the platforms directly? And do live shows. What extra does a label give? As you said, they used to invest in artist development and were indispensable for producing the physical media at scale and distributing it to physical record stores everywhere, including internationally. Today all this is much simpler to manage.
It's worth nothing that we don't live in the 1980s anymore. Radio play, opening for Nickleback, selling merch - all of this matters much less than having a dedicated Internet following. We have lots of examples of musicians in the modern era eschewing radio play entirely, only for radios to beg for licensing rights to play their music. Or successful artists who started their own label or bought-back the rights to their masters. The times have changed quite significantly.
The other thing people seem to forget is that many of the original labels were talent agencies. The reason they promote anyone at all is to try and recoup the investment of supporting all of them. You don't have to empathize with record labels, but modern artists can absolutely "scale" without someone artificially inflating their popularity.
I know you aren't the same person as above but the person above wrote
> they used to invest in artist development. Now they don't. Most spend very little on promotion
You seem to be claiming they are providing value.
It they aren't providing any value then artists should not sign up. If the are providing value then it's up to the artist whether or not that value is worth it.
> Is this one London or Copenhagen? There’s literally no way to know!
There are two passing vehicles in the background, based on the direction of movement they seem to be driving on the left. Assuming the image is not reversed this would imply London...
of course, this could also be discovered by recognising literally anything else
