It really depends on the type and field of economics you’re looking at. Macro and micro are very very different fields. There are also a lot of different ways to present these facts. In general gdp means very little for normal people, and something like the Gini coefficient at least gets a little closer to a metric that actually represents the economic health of a country.

I’m using it when looking for specific information about specific topics (tutorials, product reviews) but I haven’t looked at the front page since the announcement

I watched some really interesting video essays on him and his style and I think the general sense that his philanthropy is good holds true. I think there are two consequences of his videos and content that are negative and have had negative consequences for the rest of YouTube as channels copy his style. The first being the glorification of money and materialism as many videos feature expensive products and piles of money. While they are used in a positive way, they are promoted in a light which I think is negative especially for kids and which has created a genre of YouTube videos focusing on giving and spending huge amounts of cash. The second is the loud jumpy editing style which has spread similarly to copycats. That seems less existentially negative and more just annoying. But ultimately, I think he contributes good to the world, perhaps more in the way that Oprah does than a charity.

No and I hope they don’t. At first that’s what I wanted for mastodon / Lemmy but as I’ve been here I’ve realized that having too many people invariably dilutes the quality of content since popularity means shouting over more voices and content which is generic or manipulative (rage bait) or appeals to the least common denominator bubbles up. There’s a critical mass needed for quality and content variety, but too much and it falls apart.

No and I hope they don’t. At first that’s what I wanted for mastodon / Lemmy but as I’ve been here I’ve realized that having too many people invariably dilutes the quality of content since popularity means shouting over more voices and content which is generic or manipulative (rage bait) or appeals to the least common denominator bubbles up. There’s a critical mass needed for quality and content variety, but too much and it falls apart.

No and I hope they don’t. At first that’s what I wanted for mastodon / Lemmy but as I’ve been here I’ve realized that having too many people invariably dilutes the quality of content since popularity means shouting over more voices and content which is generic or manipulative (rage bait) or appeals to the least common denominator bubbles up. There’s a critical mass needed for quality and content variety, but too much and it falls apart.

I would go as far as to say the point is that it’s not for profit. Profit incentive ruins everything, most of all online services and platforms.

No one knows what it will look like this is an entirely new shift but I do have this feeling that things are at a real turning point right now. The massive rise of AI, the monetization and enshitification of social media and entertainment reaching a peak, bizzare economic conditions, a feverish culture war in the west. I’m sure I’m missing something but there is a strange cocktail of factors mixing right now and the changes happening with Reddit seem like just another piece. I’m optimistic about what it means. I think a lot of people feel like the status quo as it has been is not infinitely sustainable.

Can you elaborate on how they get those metrics?