#Diversify and Dominate | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

steffisblogs · 9 months

Text

Everything You Need to Know About Investing

Investing is a vast and intricate world, filled with opportunities, pitfalls, and a plethora of information. Whether you're a seasoned investor or just starting out, there's always something new to learn. Let's dive into the essentials of investing and how you can navigate this financial journey with confidence.

The Foundations of Investing

Before diving deep into the strategies and nuances, it's crucial to understand the basics. Investing is essentially allocating resources, usually money, with the expectation of generating an income or profit. But where do you start?

1. Understanding Your Goals

Every investor has a unique set of objectives. Some might be saving for retirement, while others could be aiming to buy a home or fund their children's education. Knowing your goals will help you tailor your investment strategy accordingly.

2. Risk and Return

There's a fundamental principle in investing: the higher the potential return, the higher the risk. It's essential to assess your risk tolerance and align it with your investment choices. For a deeper dive into risk management, check out Investment Pitfalls Unveiled: How to Avoid Costly Mistakes.

3. Diversification

Don't put all your eggs in one basket. Diversifying your investments across different asset classes can help mitigate risk. This strategy is beautifully explained in The Comprehensive Guide to Index Funds: A Powerful Tool for Diversification and Long-term Growth.

The World of E-commerce and Investing

E-commerce has revolutionized the way we shop and invest. With the rise of online platforms, investing has become more accessible than ever. Here's how the e-commerce landscape intertwines with the world of investing:

Retail Trends: The retail industry is ever-evolving, with new trends emerging regularly. For instance, the new retail trends in Qatar offer a comprehensive insight into the changing dynamics of the market.

Online Safety: As online transactions become more prevalent, it's crucial to ensure safety. Learn how to shop online safely to protect your investments and personal information.

The Magic of Customer Experience: In the world of e-commerce, customer experience is king. Dive into the enchanting e-commerce world and discover how it impacts investment decisions.

Cryptocurrency: The New Frontier

The rise of digital currencies, especially Bitcoin, has added a new dimension to investing. With its decentralized nature and potential for high returns, many are drawn to this digital gold. Explore the empowering world of Bitcoin banking and how it's reshaping the financial landscape.

Time: The Investor's Best Friend

Time is a crucial factor in investing. The power of compounding, where your investments earn returns on returns, can lead to exponential growth over time. Delve into the concept of compounding demystified to harness its potential.

In Conclusion

Investing is a journey, filled with learning, growth, and occasional setbacks. But with the right knowledge, tools, and mindset, it can lead to financial freedom and prosperity. As you embark on this journey, remember to stay informed, make informed decisions, and always keep your goals in sight.

For more insights, tips, and comprehensive guides on various topics, explore the vast collection of articles on Steffi's Blogs. Happy investing!

Note: Always consult with a financial advisor before making any investment decisions.

1 note · View note

mostlysignssomeportents · 3 months

Text

Big Tech disrupted disruption

If you'd like an essay-formatted version of this post to read or share, here's a link to it on pluralistic.net, my surveillance-free, ad-free, tracker-free blog:

https://pluralistic.net/2024/02/08/permanent-overlords/#republicans-want-to-defund-the-police

Before "disruption" turned into a punchline, it was a genuinely exciting idea. Using technology, we could connect people to one another and allow them to collaborate, share, and cooperate to make great things happen.

It's easy (and valid) to dismiss the "disruption" of Uber, which "disrupted" taxis and transit by losing $31b worth of Saudi royal money in a bid to collapse the world's rival transportation system, while quietly promising its investors that it would someday have pricing power as a monopoly, and would attain profit through price-gouging and wage-theft.

Uber's disruption story was wreathed in bullshit: lies about the "independence" of its drivers, about the imminence of self-driving taxis, about the impact that replacing buses and subways with millions of circling, empty cars would have on traffic congestion. There were and are plenty of problems with traditional taxis and transit, but Uber magnified these problems, under cover of "disrupting" them away.

But there are other feats of high-tech disruption that were and are genuinely transformative – Wikipedia, GNU/Linux, RSS, and more. These disruptive technologies altered the balance of power between powerful institutions and the businesses, communities and individuals they dominated, in ways that have proven both beneficial and durable.

When we speak of commercial disruption today, we usually mean a tech company disrupting a non-tech company. Tinder disrupts singles bars. Netflix disrupts Blockbuster. Airbnb disrupts Marriott.

But the history of "disruption" features far more examples of tech companies disrupting other tech companies: DEC disrupts IBM. Netscape disrupts Microsoft. Google disrupts Yahoo. Nokia disrupts Kodak, sure – but then Apple disrupts Nokia. It's only natural that the businesses most vulnerable to digital disruption are other digital businesses.

And yet…disruption is nowhere to be seen when it comes to the tech sector itself. Five giant companies have been running the show for more than a decade. A couple of these companies (Apple, Microsoft) are Gen-Xers, having been born in the 70s, then there's a couple of Millennials (Amazon, Google), and that one Gen-Z kid (Facebook). Big Tech shows no sign of being disrupted, despite the continuous enshittification of their core products and services. How can this be? Has Big Tech disrupted disruption itself?

That's the contention of "Coopting Disruption," a new paper from two law profs: Mark Lemley (Stanford) and Matthew Wansley (Yeshiva U):

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4713845

The paper opens with a review of the literature on disruption. Big companies have some major advantages: they've got people and infrastructure they can leverage to bring new products to market more cheaply than startups. They've got existing relationships with suppliers, distributors and customers. People trust them.

Diversified, monopolistic companies are also able to capture "involuntary spillovers": when Google spends money on AI for image recognition, it can improve Google Photos, YouTube, Android, Search, Maps and many other products. A startup with just one product can't capitalize on these spillovers in the same way, so it doesn't have the same incentives to spend big on R&D.

Finally, big companies have access to cheap money. They get better credit terms from lenders, they can float bonds, they can tap the public markets, or just spend their own profits on R&D. They can also afford to take a long view, because they're not tied to VCs whose funds turn over every 5-10 years. Big companies get cheap money, play a long game, pay less to innovate and get more out of innovation.

But those advantages are swamped by the disadvantages of incumbency, all the various curses of bigness. Take Arrow's "replacement effect": new companies that compete with incumbents drive down the incumbents' prices and tempt their customers away. But an incumbent that buys a disruptive new company can just shut it down, and whittle down its ideas to "sustaining innovation" (small improvements to existing products), killing "disruptive innovation" (major changes that make the existing products obsolete).

Arrow's Replacement Effect also comes into play before a new product even exists. An incumbent that allows a rival to do R&D that would eventually disrupt its product is at risk; but if the incumbent buys this pre-product, R&D-heavy startup, it can turn the research to sustaining innovation and defund any disruptive innovation.

Arrow asks us to look at the innovation question from the point of view of the company as a whole. Clayton Christensen's "Innovator's Dilemma" looks at the motivations of individual decision-makers in large, successful companies. These individuals don't want to disrupt their own business, because that will render some part of their own company obsolete (perhaps their own division!). They also don't want to radically change their customers' businesses, because those customers would also face negative effects from disruption.

A startup, by contrast, has no existing successful divisions and no giant customers to safeguard. They have nothing to lose and everything to gain from disruption. Where a large company has no way for individual employees to initiate major changes in corporate strategy, a startup has fewer hops between employees and management. What's more, a startup that rewards an employee's good idea with a stock-grant ties that employee's future finances to the outcome of that idea – while a giant corporation's stock bonuses are only incidentally tied to the ideas of any individual worker.

Big companies are where good ideas go to die. If a big company passes on its employees' cool, disruptive ideas, that's the end of the story for that idea. But even if 100 VCs pass on a startup's cool idea and only one VC funds it, the startup still gets to pursue that idea. In startup land, a good idea gets lots of chances – in a big company, it only gets one.

Given how innately disruptable tech companies are, given how hard it is for big companies to innovate, and given how little innovation we've gotten from Big Tech, how is it that the tech giants haven't been disrupted?

The authors propose a four-step program for the would-be Tech Baron hoping to defend their turf from disruption.

First, gather information about startups that might develop disruptive technologies and steer them away from competing with you, by investing in them or partnering with them.

Second, cut off any would-be competitor's supply of resources they need to develop a disruptive product that challenges your own.

Third, convince the government to pass regulations that big, established companies can comply with but that are business-killing challenges for small competitors.

Finally, buy up any company that resists your steering, succeeds despite your resource war, and escapes the compliance moats of regulation that favors incumbents.

Then: kill those companies.

The authors proceed to show that all four tactics are in play today. Big Tech companies operate their own VC funds, which means they get a look at every promising company in the field, even if they don't want to invest in them. Big Tech companies are also awash in money and their "rival" VCs know it, and so financial VCs and Big Tech collude to fund potential disruptors and then sell them to Big Tech companies as "aqui-hires" that see the disruption neutralized.

On resources, the authors focus on data, and how companies like Facebook have explicit policies of only permitting companies they don't see as potential disruptors to access Facebook data. They reproduce internal Facebook strategy memos that divide potential platform users into "existing competitors, possible future competitors, [or] developers that we have alignment with on business models." These categories allow Facebook to decide which companies are capable of developing disruptive products and which ones aren't. For example, Amazon – which doesn't compete with Facebook – is allowed to access FB data to target shoppers. But Messageme, a startup, was cut off from Facebook as soon as management perceived them as a future rival. Ironically – but unsurprisingly – Facebook spins these policies as pro-privacy, not anti-competitive.

These data policies cast a long shadow. They don't just block existing companies from accessing the data they need to pursue disruptive offerings – they also "send a message" to would-be founders and investors, letting them know that if they try to disrupt a tech giant, they will have their market oxygen cut off before they can draw breath. The only way to build a product that challenges Facebook is as Facebook's partner, under Facebook's direction, with Facebook's veto.

Next, regulation. Starting in 2019, Facebook started publishing full-page newspaper ads calling for regulation. Someone ghost-wrote a Washington Post op-ed under Zuckerberg's byline, arguing the case for more tech regulation. Google, Apple, OpenAI other tech giants have all (selectively) lobbied in favor of many regulations. These rules covered a lot of ground, but they all share a characteristic: complying with them requires huge amounts of money – money that giant tech companies can spare, but potential disruptors lack.

Finally, there's predatory acquisitions. Mark Zuckerberg, working without the benefit of a ghost writer (or in-house counsel to review his statements for actionable intent) has repeatedly confessed to buying companies like Instagram to ensure that they never grow to be competitors. As he told one colleague, "I remember your internal post about how Instagram was our threat and not Google+. You were basically right. The thing about startups though is you can often acquire them.”

All the tech giants are acquisition factories. Every successful Google product, almost without exception, is a product they bought from someone else. By contrast, Google's own internal products typically crash and burn, from G+ to Reader to Google Videos. Apple, meanwhile, buys 90 companies per year – Tim Apple brings home a new company for his shareholders more often than you bring home a bag of groceries for your family. All the Big Tech companies' AI offerings are acquisitions, and Apple has bought more AI companies than any of them.

Big Tech claims to be innovating, but it's really just operationalizing. Any company that threatens to disrupt a tech giant is bought, its products stripped of any really innovative features, and the residue is added to existing products as a "sustaining innovation" – a dot-release feature that has all the innovative disruption of rounding the corners on a new mobile phone.

The authors present three case-studies of tech companies using this four-point strategy to forestall disruption in AI, VR and self-driving cars. I'm not excited about any of these three categories, but it's clear that the tech giants are worried about them, and the authors make a devastating case for these disruptions being disrupted by Big Tech.

What do to about it? If we like (some) disruption, and if Big Tech is enshittifying at speed without facing dethroning-by-disruption, how do we get the dynamism and innovation that gave us the best of tech?

The authors make four suggestions.

First, revive the authorities under existing antitrust law to ban executives from Big Tech companies from serving on the boards of startups. More broadly, kill interlocking boards altogether. Remember, these powers already exist in the lawbooks, so accomplishing this goal means a change in enforcement priorities, not a new act of Congress or rulemaking. What's more, interlocking boards between competing companies are illegal per se, meaning there's no expensive, difficult fact-finding needed to demonstrate that two companies are breaking the law by sharing directors.

Next: create a nondiscrimination policy that requires the largest tech companies that share data with some unaffiliated companies to offer data on the same terms to other companies, except when they are direct competitors. They argue that this rule will keep tech giants from choking off disruptive technologies that make them obsolete (rather than competing with them).

On the subject of regulation and compliance moats, they have less concrete advice. They counsel lawmakers to greet tech giants' demands to be regulated with suspicion, to proceed with caution when they do regulate, and to shape regulation so that it doesn't limit market entry, by keeping in mind the disproportionate burdens regulations put on established giants and small new companies. This is all good advice, but it's more a set of principles than any kind of specific practice, test or procedure.

Finally, they call for increased scrutiny of mergers, including mergers between very large companies and small startups. They argue that existing law (Sec 2 of the Sherman Act and Sec 7 of the Clayton Act) both empower enforcers to block these acquisitions. They admit that the case-law on this is poor, but that just means that enforcers need to start making new case-law.

I like all of these suggestions! We're certainly enjoying a more activist set of regulators, who are more interested in Big Tech, than we've seen in generations.

But they are grossly under-resourced even without giving them additional duties. As Matt Stoller points out, "the DOJ's Antitrust Division has fewer people enforcing anti-monopoly laws in a $24 trillion economy than the Smithsonian Museum has security guards."

https://www.thebignewsletter.com/p/congressional-republicans-to-defund

What's more, Republicans are trying to slash their budgets even further. The American conservative movement has finally located a police force they're eager to defund: the corporate police who defend us all from predatory monopolies.

Image: Cryteria (modified) https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:HAL9000.svg

CC BY 3.0 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/deed.en

284 notes · View notes

headspace-hotel · 2 months

Text

like i'm so fascinated with the proportions of species in different lineages and how that changes over time. Is the species richness in a lineage broadly stable or does it sometimes change rapidly?

like if a genus of plants has 100 species in it, is that an indicator that in the future it will diversify into a dynasty of plants that sweeps the globe, or does that just randomly happen to species every few tens of thousands of years and usually result in a bunch of extinctions?

What about a very ancient lineage with only a few straggling survivors? Is there a chance of them diversifying again and dominating the Earth?

Can mass extinctions really be defined in terms of the raw number of taxa that become extinct? Why don't we analyze mass extinctions based on the highest taxonomic ranks that are terminated? Would below-genus-level extinctions be detectable in the fossil record, and how often do species-level terminations of a lineage happen vs. genus-level vs. family-level and on up?

Has the rate of speciation throughout Earth's history changed or broadly stayed the same or what?

These are the questions that keep me up at night...

132 notes · View notes

madjazzed · 7 days

Text

Intro to Alternian Biology: respiratory pigments

Like the blood of most species on Earth and Alternia, trolls' blood derives its color from metalloproteins used to transport oxygen. Unlike most species on Earth and Alternia, troll blood contains multiple types of oxygen-transport proteins--five in total.

HEMERYTHRIN is the primary oxygen-transport protein in the blood of seadwelling trolls, and is also present in significant concentrations in purplebloods. It is violet-pink when oxygenated. Much Alternian sea life uses hemerythrin as its sole or primary oxygen transport protein, as do many Earth marine invertebrates.

HEMOCYANIN is the primary oxygen-transport protein of landdwelling highbloods (blue and purple) and present in significant concentrations down to olive. It is dark blue when oxygenated. Hemocyanin is also found in the blood of many Earth mollusks and arthropods.

CHLOROCRUORIN is present in very small quantities across the hemospectrum, and in high concentrations in greenbloods; it was the primary blood pigment in limebloods, which are now extinct. Chlorocruorin is a dichromatic compound which appears light green in dilute solutions, including normal blood, and red when highly concentrated; an uncommon mutation causing extreme overproduction of chlorocruorin thus results in bright red blood. On Earth, chlorocruorin is mostly found in worms.

COBOGLOBIN is an important oxygen-transport protein in low and midblood trolls and is most highly concentrated in goldbloods, the only caste for which it is primary, with significant concentrations occurring in every hemotype from rust to teal. It is yellow-orange in color when deoxygenated. Coboglobin is the only Alternian blood protein that does not occur in Earth biology.

HEMOGLOBIN is the primary oxygen-transport protein in rustblooded trolls. The highest concentrations occur in burgundy bloods, and it is present in significant quantities in all blood castes up to olive. Fuschiabloods also have hemoglobin in relatively small but still significant quantities, notably more than in any of the other high blood castes. It is dark red when oxygenated. Nearly all Earth vertebrate species rely on hemoglobin for oxygen transport.

Additional notes:

The gray color of trolls' skin comes from black eumelanin and blue-gray carotenoproteins in the skin cells, the concentration of which increases with age. The yellow color of trolls' irises comes from yellow carotenoproteins. These are present in most troll tissues, but their color is usually masked by the darker skin pigments or the more vivid blood pigments. They do, however, contribute to the color of yellow blood, the only hemotype dominated by a transport protein which is colorless when oxygenated.

High concentrations of chlorocruorin are correlated with conciliatory impulses. Sopor slime is a highly oxygenated fluid containing significant concentrations of chlorocruorin, which give it its green color and are believed by many to contribute to its dampening effect on sleep rage and daymares, though the mechanism is not known. No surviving castes have as much as 50% chlorocruorin, while the now-extinct lime bloods had just over. Trolls with the rare cherry red mutation, however, have over 90% chlorocruorin, twice as concentrated as any other surviving caste.

It has been theorized that the cherry red mutation is a throwback to a now-extinct subspecies of troll which relied solely on chlorocrourin for oxygen transport. There were many subspecies in Alternia's evolutionary past, some more successful and widespread than others. In prehistory it is thought that none used more than one oxygen transport protein, as is typical in most planetary ecologies including Earth's. However, early hybrids benefited from the adaptive advantages of diversifying oxygen transport, and the mixing of subspecies through kleptogenetic reproductive strategies eventually resulted in the distribution of diverse respiratory pigments seen in the modern hemospectrum.

#intro to alternian biology #hemospectrum #speculative xenobiology #homestuck

111 notes · View notes

centrally-unplanned · 7 months

Text

Gonna make this a quick one since I just don’t have the spoons for a really big effort post: Pre-CCP 20th Century China Did Not Have Feudal or Slave-like Land Tenancy Systems

Obviously what counts as “slave-like” is going to be subjective, but I think it's common, for *ahem* reasons, for people to believe that in the 1930’s Chinese agriculture was dominated by massive-scale, absentee landlords who held the large majority of peasant workers in a virtual chokehold and dictated all terms of labor.

That is not how Chinese land ownership & agricultural systems worked. I am going to pull from Chinese Agriculture in the 1930s: Investigations into John Lossing Buck’s Rediscovered ‘Land Utilization in China’ Microdata, which is some of the best ground-level data you can get on how land use functioned, in practice, in China during the "Nanjing Decade" before WW2 ruins all data collection. It looks at a series of north-central provinces, which gives you the money table of this:

On average, 4/5ths of Chinese peasants owned land, and primarily farmed land that they owned. Tenancy was, by huge margins, the minority practice. I really don’t need to say more than this, but I'm going to because there is a deeper point I want to make. And it's fair to say that while this is representative of Northern China, Southern China did have higher tenancy rates - not crazy higher, but higher.

So let's look at those part-owner farmers; sounds bad right? Like they own part of their land, but it's not enough? Well, sometimes, but sometimes not:

A huge class (about ~1/3rd) of those part-owners were farming too much land, not too little; they were enterprising households renting land to expand their businesses. They would often engage in diversified production, like cash crops on the rented land and staple crops on their owned land. Many of them would actually leave some of their owned land fallow, because it wasn’t worth the time to farm!

Meanwhile the small part-owners and the landless tenant farmers would rent out land to earn a living…sometimes. Because that wasn’t the only way to make a living - trades existed. From our data, if you are a small part-owner, you got a substantial chunk of your income from non-farm labor; if you owned no land you got the majority of your income from non-farm labor:

(Notice how that includes child labor by default, welcome to pre-modernism!)

So the amount of people actually doing full-tenancy agriculture for a living is…pretty small, less than 10% for sure. But what did it look like for those who do? The tenancy rates can be pretty steep - 50/50 splits were very common. But that is deceiving actually; this would be called “share rent”, but other systems, such as cash rents, bulk crop rents, long-term leases with combined payment structures, etc, also existed and were plentiful - and most of those had lower rent rates. However, share rent did two things; one, it hedged against risk; in the case of a crop failure you weren't out anything as the tenant, a form of insurance. And two, it implied reciprocal obligations - the land owner was providing the seed, normally the tools as well, and other inputs like fertilizer.

Whether someone chose one type of tenancy agreement or the other was based on balancing their own labor availability, other wage opportunities, the type of crop being grown, and so on. From the data we have, negotiations were common around these types of agreements; a lot of land that was share rent one year would be cash rent another, because the tenants and market conditions shifted to encourage one or the other form.

I’m doing a little trick here, by throwing all these things at you. Remember the point at the top? “Was this system like slavery?” What defines slavery? To me, its a lack of options - that is the bedrock of a slave system. Labor that you are compelled by law to do, with no claim on the output of that work. And as I hit you with eight tiers of land ownership and tenancy agreements and multi-source household incomes, as you see that the median person renting out land to a tenant farmer was himself a farmer as a profession and by no means some noble in the city, what I hope becomes apparent is that the Chinese agricultural system was a fully liquid market based on choice and expected returns. By no means am I saying that it was a nice way to live; it was an awful way to live. But nowhere in this system was state coercion the bedrock of the labor system. China’s agricultural system was in fact one of the most free, commercial, and contract-based systems on the planet in the pre-modern era, that was a big source of why China as a society was so wealthy. It was a massive, moving market of opportunities for wages, loans, land ownership, tenancy agreements, haggled contracts, everyone trying in their own way to make the living that they could.

It's a system that left many poor, and to be clear injustices, robberies, corruption, oh for sure were legion. Particularly during the Warlord Era mass armies might just sweep in and confiscate all your hard currency and fresh crops. But, even ignoring that the whole ‘poverty’ thing is 90% tech level and there was no amount of redistribution that was going to improve that very much, what is more important is that the pre-modern world was *not* equally bad in all places. The American South was also pretty poor, but richer than China in the 19th century. And being a slave in the American South was WAY worse than being a peasant in China during times of peace - because Confederate society built systems to remove choice, to short-circuit the ebb and flow of the open system to enshrine their elite ‘permanently’ at the top. If you lived in feudal Russia it was a good deal worse, with huge amounts of your yearly labor compelled by the state onto estates held by those who owned them unimpeachably by virtue of their birthright (though you were a good deal richer just due to basic agriculture productivity & population density, bit of a tradeoff there).

If you simply throw around the word “slavery” to describe every pre-modern agricultural system because it was poor and shitty, that back-doors a massive amount of apologia for past social systems that were actively worse than the benchmarks of the time. Which is something the CCP did; their diagnosis of China’s problem for the rural poor of needing massive land redistribution was wrong! It was just wrong, it was not the issue they were having. It was not why rural China was often poor and miserable. It could help, sure, I myself would support some compensated land redistribution in the post-war era as a welfare idea for a fiscally-strapped state. But that was gonna do 1% of the heavy lifting here in making the rural poor's lives better. And I don’t think we should continue to the job of spreading the CCP's propaganda for them.

There ya go @chiefaccelerator, who alas I was not permitted to compel via state force into writing this for me, you Qing Dynasty lazy peasant.

#Chinese history discourse blog #essay

258 notes · View notes

volleypearlfan · 1 year

Text

Where are the teenage/YA cartoons?

Recently, two cartoons that were slated to be on Cartoon Network, Unicorn: Warriors Eternal and My Adventures With Superman, are now going to be on Adult Swim.

To me, this move makes no sense. These shows could have diversified Cartoon Network’s very barebones lineup, but they were shoved to Adult Swim. I sorta understand Unicorn, as it is dark (but definitely not on the same level as Primal, one of Genndy Tartakovsky’s other shows), but My Adventures with Superman? That show seems pretty innocuous. It has a bright color palette and doesn’t seem similar to Harley Quinn or the later seasons of Young Justice.

This reminds me of the desperate need there is for teen/YA-oriented western cartoons. In western animation, there are three primary audiences:

Preschoolers; anything rated TV-Y, shown on PBS Kids, Nick Jr, Disney Junior, or Cartoonito. Example: Doc McStuffins.

Big kids/elementary school crowd; anything rated TV-Y7, can be seen on Nickelodeon, Cartoon Network, and Disney Channel. Example: The Amazing World of Gumball.

Adult; anything rated TV-14 or TV-MA, seen on Adult Swim, Comedy Central, or the prime time Fox lineup. Example: Rick and Morty.

That’s it. Despite what the rating of TV-14 might lead you to believe, the stuff on Animation Domination or Adult Swim isn’t targeted to teenagers, obviously.

This leaves teenagers in a weird spot when it comes to watching cartoons (western ones, that is. They definitely watch anime). They tend to stick with big kids and/or adult cartoons, like Avatar. With all of the heavy subject matter it and Korra tackle, they definitely feel more like teenage cartoons, especially since they were inspired by anime.

I bring up anime because they have clearly defined demographics, including teenagers. They have manga/anime for teenage boys, shonen (Naruto, One Piece, Dragon Ball Z), and teenage girls, shojo (Fruits Basket, Kamisama Kiss, Yona of the Dawn).

Shojo anime (except Sailor Moon) pretty much never air on American TV, but when shonen anime are exported here, they end up on Adult Swim’s Toonami block. For example, Demon Slayer aired on Toonami (they had to stop airing it because it got too expensive), and in America, the Mugen Train movie was rated R. This despite Demon Slayer being aimed at teenagers, and also being enjoyed by small children in Japan. They even had a Japanese Happy Meal promotion that ran alongside Pretty Cure, a show that actually is aimed at small children (kodomomuke).

With America’s teenagers flocking to anime, I believe that the American animation industry should keep up with the times and try to capitalize on the teenage demographic instead of shoehorning shows to be for elementary schoolers or adults.

Here are some western cartoons I believe could be classified as YA/teenage shows:

Avatar and Korra, as mentioned above.

Most cartoons aired on MTV, such as Daria, Beavis and Butthead, and Clone High. It helps that MTV itself was aimed at teenagers. Aeon Flux is an exception however, as it is clearly for adults. They’re often shoehorned into the category of “adult animation,” but their subject matter is more appealing to teens.

6teen. It’s right there in the title! Canada knows what’s up.

Total Drama, another Canadian cartoon. I know that they made the younger-skewing DramaRama spin-off because teenagers weren’t watching cartoons anymore, but now that the main show is coming back, it will definitely be aimed at teenagers again.

Sym Bionic Titan, yet another Tartakovsky show, pretty much is a teen/YA show, minus swearing. If I remember correctly, it aired on Toonami for a little while.

Regular Show. The most obvious example of a YA cartoon disguised as a kids cartoon.

Infinity Train. Never forget that it was cancelled because “no child entry point.”

As Told By Ginger is essentially a teen drama in animated form.

Invader Zim - Nickelodeon asked Johnson Vasquez to make a show directed towards older audiences, got exactly what they wanted (most of the viewership was from teens and adults, especially of the shops-at-Hot Topic variety) and cancelled it anyway.

Arcane is technically an adult series, but League of Legends is rated T by the ESRB, so I’m putting it in the teen/YA category (there IS a distinction between ‘young adult’ and ‘adult’)

I highly doubt that the likes of Nickelodeon will add a teenage animation block to their lineup (and TeenNick is nothing but iCarly reruns), but I hope that streaming services will start capitalizing on the YA demographic for western animation. Bee and Puppycat is a good start, featuring relatable young adult situations while technically being watchable for all ages. At least Unicorn is gonna air on ACME Night, which isn’t too late in the evening (currently, the block starts at 5:30 EST). And with Clone High and the aforementioned Total Drama making a comeback, I’m holding out hope for more YA animation.

#long post #animation #western animation #cartoons #ya #my adventures with Superman #unicorn warriors eternal #adult swim #Toonami #6teen #daria #infinity train #as told by ginger #acme night #my animation essays

527 notes · View notes

covidsafehotties · 2 days

Text

Preprint published April 26, 2024

Abstract

The JN.1 variant (BA.2.86.1.1), arising from BA.2.86(.1) with the S:L455S substitution, exhibited increased fitness and outcompeted the previous dominant XBB lineage by the biggening of 2024. JN.1 subsequently diversified, leading to the emergence of descendants with spike (S) protein substitutions such as S:R346T and S:F456L. Particularly, the KP.2 (JN.1.11.1.2) variant, a descendant of JN.1 bearing both S:R346T and S:F456L, is rapidly spreading in multiple regions as of April 2024. Here, we investigated the virological properties of KP.2. KP.2 has three substitutions in the S protein including the two above and additional one substitution in non-S protein compared with JN.1. We estimated the relative effective reproduction number (Re) of KP.2 based on the genome surveillance data from the USA, United Kingdom, and Canada where >30 sequences of KP.2 has been reported, using a Bayesian multinomial logistic model. The Re of KP.2 is 1.22-, 1.32-, and 1.26-fold higher than that of JN.1 in USA, United Kingdom, and Canada, respectively. These results suggest that KP.2 has higher viral fitness and potentially becomes the predominant lineage worldwide. Indeed, as of the beginning of April 2024, the estimated variant frequency of KP.2 has already reached 20% in United Kingdom. The pseudovirus assay showed that the infectivity of KP.2 is significantly (10.5-fold) lower than that of JN.1. We then performed a neutralization assay using monovalent XBB.1.5 vaccine sera and breakthrough infection (BTI) sera with XBB.1.5, EG.5, HK.3 and JN.1 infections. In all cases, the 50% neutralization titer (NT50) against KP.2 was significantly lower than that against JN.1. Particularly, KP.2 shows the most significant resistance to the sera of monovalent XBB.1.5 vaccinee without infection (3.1-fold) as well as those who with infection (1.8-fold). Altogether, these results suggest that the increased immune resistance ability of KP.2 partially contributes to the higher Re more than previous variants including JN.1.

Major takeaway: Covid continues to evolve towards immune escape even with vaccination. Mask up to stop the spread. It's the only way to truly stop covid.

#mask up #covid #covid 19 #covid isn't over #pandemic #covid conscious #covid is airborne #wear a mask #coronavirus

41 notes · View notes

dragonthunders01 · 7 months

Text

Spectember D22: Interspecific display

In the late Jurassic of north America, where titanic sauropods, ferocious theropods and a myriad of different dinosaurs should roam there I instead titanic dicynodonts and derived elephant sized Traversodontids wanders on the forests, hunted down by a variety of predatory Mammaliaforms and diverse cynodonts, and below many minor other synapsids and small new diapsids roams as middle size fauna, this world never saw any archosauromorphs rise as they became extinct in the Permian, leaving the Triassic and Jurassic to be fully dominated by the second wave of synapsids after the great dying and the minor constrains of an even weaker Triassic/Jurassic mass extinction.

With that and the time given it allowed some groups to diversify in ways they couldn’t have done in our timeline, specially for dicynodonts which apart of being the largest terrestrial animals here they also have been experimenting in other niches as aquatic herbivores, scavengers and even some small carnivores, and so many herbivores developing different fighting or extravagant ornaments in order to show their strength and good gene pool for any possible mate. This is where the Branched Warmcorns (Calenocristas multichromus) comes into play, coming from a lineage of more gracile forms than the usual beaked behemoth, they are around 2 meters long and they are the largest most flamboyant animals of the forestall regions, the young males and females are often dull colored with only a handful of prominent minor crests and horns, but an adult male in their peak would expose a series of very large ornamental crests and horns that bright in very warm colorations, including a variety of yellows, pinks, oranges and reds, all reflecting from a light blue face up to the back of the head. The bright adult has often to be dealing either with predators as well with other large males or just recently grown younger individuals that defy their domain over specific territories, normally with constant head ramming and even biting. They live in groups of 20 individuals, often a bull male is surrounded by different age females and just young individuals, which males reaching certain age have to leave before the main male could threat them or even kill them.

#speculative evolution #alternative evolution #jurassic #dicynodont #spectember

107 notes · View notes

zadig-fate · 5 months

Text

Unpopular (?) opinion: I'm not actually that mad about these early access tickets.

Yes not everyone has the money, but by the same logic, not everyone has the time and flexibility to queue for an entire day either. People have jobs and other responsibilities. Being able to queue literally all day is also a privilege that not everyone has.

At least this way local fans who have to work during the day, or people who don't otherwise have the time or health to queue for 10+ hours in whatever weather, will also have a shot at the first row.

I'm hoping that this change will actually diversify who ends up in the front. People who are only going to one JO gig can spend more to make it special. And the international fans who attend multiple JO gigs (including me), who usually dominate the first row, will be forced to pick and choose which shows they want early entrance for.

I'm okay with just splurging on early entrance in my own city (Berlin) if it means that the queues become more reasonable at other shows and that more people get a chance to be at the front, rather than the same handful of international fans who arrive early and dominate every queue.

#joker out

75 notes · View notes

a-dinosaur-a-day · 6 months

Text

Fossil Novembirb 5: It's Getting Hot In Here

Sandcoleus by @drawingwithdinosaurs

Global warming is nothing new for the planet, and even in the Cenozoic we've had our share of rapid warming events - the most notable one being the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum (PETM). This event, taking place 56 million years ago, was the result of rapid carbon release from the North Atlantic Igneous Province - aka, a volcano exploded, released a bunch of greenhouse gases, and suddenly global temperatures jumped somewhere between 4 and 10 degrees Celsius (depending on location) in a very short period of time - sound familiar?

Given the obvious parallels to the current day, this event has been studied extensively, though only in a few spheres. We know that plants changed dramatically, with broad leafed plants spreading around the world and turning it into a global tropical forest, even at the polls - leading to interesting adaptations towards the strange light cycles at high latitudes. The world was wetter, and greener, and the change lead to the evolution of new herbivory methods in insects. Mammals got smaller, spread everywhere, and diversified. A mass extinction occurred in the oceans, with microorganisms seeing a larger drop in diversity than during the end-Cretaceous extinction. More calcified algae flourished in the more acidic waters.

But what happened to birds?

Anachronornis by @otussketching

Turns out, we're not quite sure. Bird fossils before the event are rare, and after are so diverged and varied that it's difficult to know what happened because of the event, and what happened before and just didn't fossilize. Luckily, scientists (... me) are on the case! And there were a few ecosystems that straddle the time around the event, such as the one for this post: the Willwood Formation.

This ecosystem in Wyoming takes place over the late Paleocene through the early Eocene, covering the entire PETM period. And while it showcases many different aspects of this transition, we're of course here for the birds! Not only was there Gastornis, because it was a ubiquitous presence in the Northern Hemisphere following the PETM, there were also many other weird early kinds of birds, all across the avian family tree.

Paracathartes by @drawingwithdinosaurs

Sandcoleus is one of the more notable tree birds from this ecosystem, being a relative of living mousebirds but in North America (rather than Africa, where they are found today). In fact, lots of different tree birds were present, indicating that the current dominance of Passeriformes - so called "perching birds" - was not always the case. In fact, Paracathartes was also present - our first Palaeognath, an early Lithornithid! - and it also may have been able to perch in the trees, and certainly seems to have been a decent flier.

There were also Geranoidids like Palaeophasianus and Paragrus, which were once thought of as pheasant-like and crane-like respectively, but may now actually be Palaeognaths - and some of the earliest known flightless ones to boot! That said, said, other than being long legged flightless birds, we know little about their ecologies - they may have been herbivorous, and as tropical forest dwellers, could have had similar lifestyles to the living cassowary.

Primoptynx by @otussketching

And, of course, there was also Anachronornis, the half-screamer-half-duck thing, showcasing how waterfowl were experimenting with a variety of different niches during this ecological explosion. And the large variety of new small mammals didn't go unnoticed either - while other early owls are known from Europe, Primoptynx was both the oldest and the biggest, probably thanks to all the new small mammals to eat! There were also possible ground raptors, similar to Bathornis, though they have not been named.

While there are many questions left to answer, it is clear that the PETM had a major effect like it did on everything else on the planet during that time - and the tropical ecologies that they evolved in during the early Eocene would have many implications, especially for where different clades live today!

Sources:

Houde, P., M. Dickson, D. Camarena. 2023. Basal Anseriformes from the Early Paleogene of North America and Europe. Diversity 15 (2): 233.

Mayr, 2022. Paleogene Fossil Birds, 2nd Edition. Springer Cham.

Mayr, 2017. Avian Evolution: The Fossil Record of Birds and its Paleobiological Significance (TOPA Topics in Paleobiology). Wiley Blackwell.

#fossil novembirb #novembirb #dinovember #dinosaurs #birds

104 notes · View notes

tribbetherium · 11 months

Text

'Easily among the most alien and unrecognizable creatures on HP-02017, the daggoths are a specialized clade unlike any other. Blind, furless, and possessing a dizzying array of appendages, these very derived molrocks resemble no other animal: and yet, despite their appearance, they are still vertebrates, mammals, and rodents, like every other backboned animal on the planet.

Their baffling plethora of limbs arose as a consequence of their lifestyle, scurrying about and clinging onto slippery cave walls in total darkness. Their ancestors, the tunneling stellasnoots, thus adapted shorter limbs and longer, more independent digits that found an added bonus as multiple feelers that aid the blind creatures in navigating terrain, while the sensory tendrils the stellasnoots possessed on their noses became even more pronounced and sensitive to compensate for their blindness.

Sixteen flexible digits act almost like independent legs, with the middle twelve possessing sharp hooked claws and broad fleshy pads that allow for walking and climbing. The first and last pairs, in most species, are instead modified as antenna-like feelers, with sensitive tips lined with sensory hairs that help the daggoth feel where it is stepping. Its nasal tendrils, on the other hand, possess chemical and thermal receptors that in essence allow it to smell and feel its environment in the direction where it is headed. The central tendril, in particular, is specialized for sampling surfaces and bringing any smells and tastes to the nose and mouth, located underneath the facial tendrils.

These highly sensitive senses have allowed daggoths to dominate in the lightless world of the sub-Arcuterran cavern system, itself arguably being an honorary continent in its unique and isolated biodiversity. Hundreds of daggoth species have since diversified in the 20 million years since the first rat-sized species made it to the concealed biome, many still small, but others, like the biblarodons and eldriphants, being of sizes rivalling those of the creatures of the sunlit world above.'

------

#speculative evolution #speculative biology #spec evo #speculative zoology #hamster's paradise #animation

191 notes · View notes

gothicprep · 6 months

Text

so, apparently marvel is in disarray. ahead of the marvels coming out this weekend, variety dropped a bomb on the studio's somewhat dire state of affairs, as the franchise has hit its first real rough patch since the release of iron man 15 years ago. among the issues: jonathan majors, whose domestic violence arrest continues to hang over marvel's plans to make his character the thanos-like heavy for the next sequence of movies, the weak box office projections for the marvels (which some have said is tracking lower than recent bombs like the flash), the unending flood of hashtag content on disney plus which is overwhelming audiences who are finding it harder to keep up with the interlocking stories that have served marvel so well over the years, shoddy visual effects, spiraling budgets such as the reported $25mil an episode for she-hulk, a show that looked terrible because of the shoddy effects work aforementioned, behind the scenes chaos as kevin feige works to slash budgets and kill projects that aren't coming together. one movie at risk is the forthcoming blade reboot with mahershala ali, which has gone through rewrite after rewrite including reportedly one draft in which blade was the fourth lead in, quote, "a narrative led by women and filled with life lessons".

that last line has provided a lot of laughs for people like jay gothicprep, and critics who insist that marvel's efforts to diversify the lineup have led to much of this disaster, indicative of disney's overall failure with things like indiana jones and the dial of destiny or animated projects like strange world or lightyear. while this is potentially true (i guess, it's possible) it doesn't seem true because this certainly wasn't the case when black panther and captain marvel were both cracking the billion dollar mark a few years ago. rather it just seems, more simply, that marvel has run its course. marvel was hit by a double-whammy of endings. the thanos storyline that'd dominated the first ten or so years of the project came to an end. at the same time, the pandemic began and disney plus started flooding the zone with content, creating a natural break point for audiences that had no desire to watch hours of tv to understand 1.5 plot points in whatever the next movie that's coming out is.

this preamble is getting kind of long, and i have a lot more to say, so i'm going to continue to thought dump about this under a cut.

first of all, i'm still laughing like a week later at the women led life lessons description. no one has disputed that it happened. that description is the funniest thing i've ever read in a trade industry report possibly ever. what in the hell, my friends. did a writer even talk to a producer about what blade was? it's a movie about a guy with a sword who kills vampires! it's pretty straighforward! that sounds like something i want to see! there were three of them already, and two of them were pretty good!

anyway, i think you can take that incredibly ridiculous description of a draft that maybe wasn't the main draft – this movie has been through tons of writers and directors – and see some of the real problems with marvel's creative direction, which is that they've stopped making movies that highlight the core concepts of their characters. there are other problems as well, but when's the last time they put out a movie that was like, "iron man. he's a guy in a metal suit and he fights a bad guy." or "spider man. it's a guy in a spider suit with spider powers. he's got girlfriend problems and he fights crime around manhattan and maybe there's dr octopus." they don't do that. their recent stretch of movies have all been these impenetrable multiverse stuff with ties to tv series that you haven't seen and maybe won't ever see. there was a whole 25 minute section in black panther 2 that was setting up armor wars and ironheart. and like. who needs that sequence, which was boring and looked like total garbage? and now armor wars is being redeveloped lol. they've just departed from a lot of the core concepts that powered their earlier films.

they have some other problems. they've leaned into a slate of characters that is not all that well-known or inherently super popular, even for marvel being able to deliver on making billion dollar films out of guardians of the galaxy and such. maybe with the exception of spider man, which they don't get a full cut from because sony owns the actual movie rights. then there's the fact that the streaming series, by all accounts, aren't great but you *feel* like you need to have seen them. they're all real big problems. marvel needs to go back to making movies that are named after a character who's a superhero with a clear concept. guy with spider powers fights crime in his neighborhood. even though those movies got kind of repetitive, they did well enough because they didn't stray too far from the character concept.

i think, too, as a viewer, when you have a studio churning out so much stuff that's not good, you get the impression that the superhero industry feels entitled to your time and entitled to your money while not delivering.

this summer also represents an interesting counterpoint to what's happened with marvel and dc. the sheer amount of stuff that you devote every waking minute to keeping track of the damn things got exhausting and made movies stop feeling like events. this summer we've had barbenheimer and the eras tour, and those have been both big events and felt exciting. barbie was a chance to be campy, oppenheimer was a chance to see something serious and cinematic, the eras tour was exciting for fans of taylor swift who couldn't afford to spend $3k on taylor swift. and they felt this way because they were all unlike anything you'd seen at the movies in recent years. they had a high standard of quality, and going, it genuinely felt like people were there because they wanted to be, not because they were being force marched by a cultural behemoth to be there. you can't summon that same kind of energy for a marvel movie when it both feels obligatory and you expect it to be bad.

it also feels like there's a certain contempt for the audience where it concerns quality problems. i mean, i don't think that this is the intention. marvel isn't saying "we can deliver this stuff that's garbage and people will see it anyway". but one of the things i thought was the most damning about that variety story was the fact that, on some of the marvel tv shows, the final effects were inserted after the shows were released. so if you watched the show on opening night, you probably didn't see the final effects work. the arrogance involved in that is insane. it speaks to a total vanished pride in putting out a good product.

even some of marvel's better regarded films were heavily edited and heavily worked on right until the end, in part because kevin feige would come in and fix things, so stuff would have to get reworked. that's why effects deadlines were super tight and people were always crunching at the very end of this. there was that incredible quote from sam raimi from a couple months before the second doctor strange came out where he was like, "i think it's done but i'm not sure. marvel, they work on their movies until the very end." the director didn't even know if his own movie was locked or not because he clearly wasn't the one making the decisions about what the final print would look like.

that can work if you're making two movies a year and have a supervisor that comes in during the process and says, "i need you to redo this, in this way". but when you stretch that out to three movies a year, plus god knows how many episodes of television, there's no way to do that and make it a high quality product.

an instructive lesson comes from the book "disneywar", which chronicles michael eisner's time at disney. and one of the things in this book was the development and deployment of "who wants to be a millionaire" in america. bob iger is head of abc at this time. the guys making this show do it for a week. audiences love it. it's putting up huge numbers. everybody is excited. it's crushing it in the ratings. and the people who made it wanted to keep doing special week or two week long engagements that people would show up for. and iger was like, "no. i want this every week, three times a week, forever." and audiences got burnt out on it quickly, because it was something that only really worked as a special that ran for a week and disappeared for a few months. that's what the disney plus strategy feels like with marvel.

#i love watching movies with my friends

65 notes · View notes