It seems like it's a MOF amine approach which does have some benefits against the MEA used in submarines, such as lower corrosive properties potentially, lower heating requirements as you don't have to heat an aqueous solution, and it can be easier to discard the remnants once its co2 absorbing properties are diminished.
I make music and would be the main contact for several artists, but I'm not a label per se. Would I join separately for each, or will there be a way for each artist to be added under my account or on separate accounts? Thanks!
Oh nice! I gave a PechaKucha talk with the same title back in 2019[0]. Love the illustrated examples here.
One thing I touched on in my talk was the idea that code is an art form that expresses the values of the artist by making something new possible in the world. The artist is saying "this should be possible for people to do" and then makes it so. I think that's really cool.
When I was a kid we used to spend summers with my grandmother. It was an idyllica pastoral setting and we used to chase the goats around and catch butterflys.
[snip 3000 words]
...when I asked her for her recipe, it turns out she made cinnamon rolls by buying pillsbury ones at the grocery store! So if you don't want to be like grandmother, use 2 cups of flour...
"Rounding errors" like these always favour the larger players. It's a form of slowly extracting money that should have gone to smaller artists and instead gets funnelled into the pockets of major label artists who arguably don't need it, at the expense of smaller artists and especially niche genres that don't have the same mass appeal as pop music. That's a group that's severely lacking representation in the discussions around how to pay fairly.
Another way they're screwing smaller artists is next year they'll be requiring each song to have 1k streams _per year_ before qualifying for monetization. They estimate that'll steal another ~$40M/year from smaller artists to help line the pockets of majors. It's actually sickening to watch from the sidelines.
> "Rounding errors" like these always favour the larger players.
I don't see it -- how?
> requiring each song to have 1k streams _per year_ before qualifying for monetization
Each stream is ~$0.004. It doesn't seem unreasonable at all to require a song to hit $4 per year -- or $0.33/mo. -- to qualify. There is some level of overhead involved here, after all. These are ludicrously small amounts of money.
Also how does this "help line the pockets of majors"? It's all just going back into the same pot of revenue that gets shared the same as before. So proportionally it's helping the artists with smaller songs still over 1K streams just as much.
And even if it's $40M, that's just 0.3% of Spotify's overall revenue. Proportionally, it's pretty irrelevant.
This isn’t per artist, it’s per song, which means an artist might put out an album and only the single gets widespread play and if the few thousand plays the rest receive all fall just under 1k they’d be discounted to unpaid plays. Remember, for smaller artists every dollar counts. Most have already seen their revenues from music drop by 90-95% since Spotify ate the industry, so why should they be so willing to accept that the first 1k plays are worth $0.00 and the next are only worth $0.003 or less.
This is also compounded by their refusal to adopt a user-centric payment model where the artists you actually listened to that month are the ones your money goes to. Look at comparisons others have published and you’ll see how their current model siphons money from smaller artists towards major label artists (I’m discretely typing this in bits from our local chamber orchestra’s AGM and can’t look up facts for you atm).
With this change, it ensures that even moving to a user-centric model they’ll still be able to underpay smaller artists. It’s not so alarming on its own, but it ensures they can continue to keep the status quo even if they give in to pressure and adopt a user-centric payment model by being able to not have to pay for much of their catalog.
But the artists never made any money in the first place. Spotify allowed for the insanely long tail of no-play artists to get a platform to begin with, paying a nominal fee seems like not that big of a deal, considering the same folks would never have gotten any exposure.
Artists had plenty of thriving platforms to get their music out digitally before Spotify came along. The difference is almost every one of them paid better or let you sell your music. Spotify has accounted for artist music revenues dropping by ~90% and has done almost nothing to help smaller artists that they weren’t already getting elsewhere. They grew in popularity due to offering listeners endless playlists. Sadly, Songza was killing it in this area too and could have been a serious Spotify competitor until Google bought it and ruined it almost overnight.
It always blows my mind seeing a post like this on HN and the top comments nitpick whether such a tax is needed.
These people don't need defending and they don't need that much money (for comparison, this was posted on here the other day and really illustrates the disparity quite well: https://mkorostoff.github.io/1-pixel-wealth/).
The reasons for taxing them (including a flat rate on their net worth which would be a terrible way to tax people in lower income brackets but could be a great way to level things off at the top end where avoidance is rampant) are many: funding climate change reversal, poverty, health, housing, medical research, the list goes on.
We don't need more pedants splitting hairs about how to more effectively use the existing tax revenues. That is a distraction. We should do that too, but we should absolutely tax the hell out of the billionaire class who have been taking more than their fair share from our resources for decades and living at the expense of all of our futures.
You are supposed to argue over minutiae of means-testing and bankrupting the economy when it comes to social programs for the poor/average person. However when it comes to taxing the rich, nothing short of the Perfect Government is good enough to administer such an increase in tax revenue.
Yeah, it's ahistorical. Some of these comments are soooo confident and condescending while ignoring basic history. Many high school kids know that the tax rate has gone down dramatically for the past 40 years. Turning that around even a little isn't some kind of hyper-leftist agenda. Like, is it really that radical to dial it back to where Reagan left it?
That itself is an ahistorical take. Tax as a percent of the economy has gone through the roof, both as a percent of GDP, and as inflation adjusted dollars.
If you compare to a benchmark like the 1940s, tax% of GDP has more than doubled, and GDP has increased ~4x. This means someone today taxes are about 10X the taxes (controlling for for inflation!)
Consider that 40% of US GDP now is collected in some form of taxation.[1] 40 cents of every dollar earned is taxed and spent as the government chooses. This is more than between FDR and Regan, and much more than the 20s (~15% of GDP).
I see your source here, but something about this isn’t sitting right with me. My data science senses are tingling, and I feel like while these numbers may be correct, they may not tell a complete story. The implication that average joe is paying 10x in taxes what we were a few decades ago really does not feel like a believable conclusion.
My presumption is that government spending has drastically increased since then. There are so many more services that the government provides. If you look at government spending, healthcare and social security are the two biggest spenders, which makes sense since the population is ageing and there are a lot more older people to provide money and services for.
Fascinating! How's that jive with the nominal tax rate being way higher back then? The highest bracket was 79% in 1940, and it's 37% today. Did we just get significantly better at taxing the middle class, or is there more at play?
The tax code in 1940 was not the current code with different rates but a different code entirely. To make an example (I am not a CPA and even less so a 1940s CPA): if you could have deducted your living expenses (food, rent/mortgage, clothes, vehicle etc.) even at the current rate you would not have been paying nearly as much in taxes as somebody who has to obey the current tax code. Same rate, different tax.
You really cannot express the tax regime with just a brackets table, the tax code alone, without IRS regulations and case law is 2600 pages as of now.
How have they been living at the expense of all of our futures? What does that say about (cliche alert) bill gates who is a famous philanthropist (for the most part) and created whole industries worth of jobs with Microsoft?
Tax the rich (which we already do btw on the account they are citizens) is just another badly thought out cliches people love to throw out at bleeding hearts for internet points
Crazy idea, but maybe inheritance is flawed? What would happen if there wouldn't be any inheritance at all, the money goes to the state and in return gives people a basic income and a lump sum when you turn 18?
Pretty much feudalism: the current middle class would have to rent housing and agricultural land, owned by corporations, where the heirs of the current upper class hold high-paying but undemanding positions.
It always blows my mind seeing people defending any tax when they can clearly see with their own eyes how ”good” is the government at spending the money it currently takes from us. And you want to give them more?!
Massive right wing strategy is to use the laws to make it nearly impossible for a government agency to function effectively, and then point to the ineffectiveness as a reason to defund it.
The fact is, government works pretty well in a lot of ways in a lot of countries.
That excuse does not explain the fact that the government services are crappy no matter what wing is on power and that the costs and size of said government are ballooning every year. Come on, for half the money I make I get a handful of substandard services while the other half gets me everything else in my life?!
There are ~200 countries on the globe. In how many do you think the government works well? 10%? 20%? Certainly in a minority of them.
This seems like an improvement over my current solution in that it can keep multiple projects open simultaneously and route to each of them, but does add more complexity to the setup.
Would love to expand on that to route to specific projects, but since it's working "well enough" I probably won't touch that for the foreseeable future.
reply