> In our agrarian past, the cultural division of labor at the time said that men worked the field, women ran the home. And that later job was brutal, never-ending, and consumed all waking hours until the day she died.
This was not true in the society my grandparents grew up in between 1900 and 1970. Both of my grandmothers and great grandmothers helped out tremendously on the farms, and my grandmother and mother were part of the new businesses when they immigrated to the US.
Based on all the women I have personally seen working in farms, and in videos, and in written accounts, I suspect your quote is only true for a very small slice of the world in a very small slice of time that was developed enough to have large farms with large machinery and scale such that the farm was earning enough profit to use automation to not need the women and allow them to only focus on the home, or hire poorer women so the farm owner could solely focus on the home.
Hell, I bet even today, even in the US, a good portion of farms need the labor of both spouses.
I was taught that lesson during Lost. If I see a show start doing unnecessary romantic/drug/backstory scenes, I’m out.
I wish more content makers advertised that they have the whole story planned before the show starts (like Breaking Bad/Vince Gilligan). Show Horses is a good example of a modern story without much fluff.
Because it makes a potential customer's life more inconvenient, so the customer has incentive to not buy Netflix. For example, me. The only reason I have for not buying Netflix is this little thing.
Also,
> Why would Netflix let Apple list all their content in an Apple branded interface as if it were their own
That's not how it works. It literally says "Open in Netflix" or whatever app. All it does is make it easy to search for stuff, add it to your watchlist, and start playing it.
What Netflix doesn't like is that it makes it easier for its customers to watch non Netflix content...which is obviously anti customer.
So? I also go to two different restaurants to buy different food, or two different websites to buy two different things, or fly two different airlines to go to two different places, etc.
Not the same, those directly compete. We all know IP doesn't work like this.
If you say you want Mexican food and I say Restaurant X is closed but we can go to Y, that's probably fine.
If you say you want to watch ratatouille and I say no, but we can watch ratatouing, which is 2 bucks at the DVD graveyard bin at Walmart, you'll say no.
Regulations are only as good as the will of the enforcers. It would be trivial and cheap to use all the technology available today (GPS, broadband mobile networks, high definition cameras, image recognition) to enforce the laws, but the overwhelming political priority is keeping goods cheaper, at the expense of a few more collisions and casualties.
Is satellite internet advertised as being more capable than a 4G LTE hotspot?
From my understanding, physics would not allow that (for a decent, not oversubscribed 4G LTE mobile connection and backhaul). But those parameters exist for satellite internet, too.
It’s nice to see business that rewarded customers with convenience win in the end.
Well, except for Netflix refusing their catalogue to be indexed in the TV app on macOS and iOS. I won’t pay for Netflix until they drop that anti customer practice.
If you want me to buy the video content you’re selling, it better be searchable in the TV app. And if not, there should be a better reason than you want to keep people trapped in the Netflix app.
Have you considered the possibility that much like App Store rules, Apple's requirements for "catalog indexing" go far, far beyond the Netflix catalog merely showing up in TV app?
Perhaps the judgement about Netflix being anti-consumer might be hard to sustain if you could more fully inspect the details of what Apple requires.
Everyone else allows their content to be indexed, and does not pay Apple anything for it. Disney, Paramount, HBO, Peacock, they all could have refused like Netflix.
1) steel and rail are important for survival, and actual monopolies that result you being only able to get a necessary good or service from 1 seller
2) there are a billion different ways to entertain yourself, including spending time on HN. It matters very little to real life that there are 5 different places to stream expensive media compared to 6. If they get too expensive, you can watch youtube or tiktok or come back to HN or whatever else.
The pro-monopoly stance never ceases to amaze me. Competition is good, apparently, but multi-hundred-billion-dollar mergers are... also good? Make it make sense.
This was not true in the society my grandparents grew up in between 1900 and 1970. Both of my grandmothers and great grandmothers helped out tremendously on the farms, and my grandmother and mother were part of the new businesses when they immigrated to the US.
Based on all the women I have personally seen working in farms, and in videos, and in written accounts, I suspect your quote is only true for a very small slice of the world in a very small slice of time that was developed enough to have large farms with large machinery and scale such that the farm was earning enough profit to use automation to not need the women and allow them to only focus on the home, or hire poorer women so the farm owner could solely focus on the home.
Hell, I bet even today, even in the US, a good portion of farms need the labor of both spouses.
reply