But ratings are different from profits! A show can be very highly rated and unprofitable. And that’s precisely what Times article describes. It also goes into the shifts in viewership that are likely responsible for the loss of revenue and profitability. McDonald’s wouldn’t keep selling the Big Mac at a loss… they’d either hike the price, cut the cost, or stop selling it. It sounds like CBS was trying to improve the situation but the gap was widening, not narrowing. How long do you expect them to lose money on the show before cancelling it?

I am a fan of the show and am sad it was cancelled. But if you look at the facts, it’s far more likely that this happened due to financial reasons.

While the timing does feel suspicious, it’s pretty unlikely that it was an implicit or explicit part of the settlement. According to NYT it’s been losing money for years, despite having good ratings:

“The Late Show,” a fixture of the network for over three decades, was racking up losses of tens of millions of dollars a year, and the gap was growing fast, according to two people familiar with the show’s finances.

…

“The Late Show” began losing money at least three years ago, two people familiar with the finances said.

While sometimes losses make sense in business (eg Costco’s $1.50 hot dogs), I doubt this was one of those cases. I personally think the cancellation was a separate decision, though still related to the Skydance acquisition, because they probably wanted to cut unprofitable shows in order to improve their valuation.

I think the bigger issue is that it’s so believable that this could have been a quid pro quo! When you pay $16 million to settle a meritless lawsuit with the president as a bribe so your business deal goes through… you’ve lost all credibility. You’re shown you’re willing to bend the knee to the self-appointed “king”.

I’m not enjoying hearing one of my preferred pop culture references being explained like you’re a fucking museum tour guide lol

Stories like Reid Tomasko’s - and others who’ve had Tesla buy back their defective Cybertrucks - highlight how the EV ownership journey can take unexpected turns.

I wish they wouldn’t conflate these dumpsters with EVs as a whole.

Yes.

Silicon isn’t the same thing as silicone 🤣

That makes about as much sense as saying that pip, gem, npm, cargo, or nix should called be the default package manager on Mac OS…

The default package manager is the default because it manages the system’s software. RPM, Deb/apt, pacman, etc. Homebrew is like pip or docker or cargo or snap or whatever else. You can set it up if you’d like but it’s certainly not a default. (Though I’m not trying to dispute that it’s good 😊)

Mac OS doesn’t have a good default package management solution (though they would if they just opened up the app store and added a CLI). It’s ok to admit it, and say that third party folks (who Apple does not support unless I’m missing something) are powering a pretty good third party experience. If only Apple cared about people who wanted a truly free an customizable computer, they could make a great OS :)

What’s wrong with homebrew?

Crappy default package management.

Not a “hater” in terms of trying/wanting to be mean, but I do disagree. I think a lot of people downvoting are frustrated because this attitude takes an issue in one application (yay), for one distro, and says “this is why Linux sucks / can’t be used by normies”. Clearly that’s not true of this specific instance, especially given that yay is basically a developer tool. At best, “this is why yay sucks”. (yay is an AUR helper - a tool to help you compile and install software that’s completely unvetted - see the big red banner. Using the AUR is definitely one of those things that puts you well outside the realm of the “common person” already.)

Maybe the more charitable interpretation is “these kinds of issues are what common users face”, and that’s a better argument (setting aside the fact that this specific instance isn’t really part of that group). I think most people agree that there are stumbling blocks, and they want things to be easier for new users. But doom-y language like this, without concrete steps or ideas, doesn’t feel particularly helpful. And it can be frustrating – thus the downvotes.

100% monitoring and control doesn’t exist. Your children will find a loophole to access unrestricted internet, it’s what they do.

Similarly, children will play in the street sometimes despite their parents’ best efforts to keep them in. (And yes, I would penalize Ford for building the trucks that have exploded in size and are more likely to kill children, but that’s a separate discussion.)

I get what you’re saying, I just think it’s wrong to say “parental responsibility” and dust off your hands like you solved the problem. A parent cannot exert their influence 24/7, they cannot be protecting their child 24/7. And that means that we need to rely on society to establish safer norms, safer streets, etc, so that there’s a “soft landing” when kids inevitably rebel, or when the parent is in the shower for 15 minutes.

I’m confused, are you saying that it was the 11 year old girl’s personal responsibility to avoid being the victim of sexual abuse? Or are you saying that it was her parents’ responsibility to be monitoring her technology use 24/7?

Neither seems right to me…

Now the predators will just continue to do there thing in a darker hole that is even harder to find.

If it’s harder to find, then fewer children stumble upon it and get preyed upon, which is a good thing.