People who are in the curation business (critics, reviewers, etc.) tend to favor things that make themselves look good to other people in the curation business. That is often opposite what the "unwashed masses" of people enjoy.

Prime example - Michael Bay movies. Michael Bay makes big, loud, entertaining movies with lots of explosions, bright lights, shiny objects, violence, and sex appeal. A "curator" is usually too snooty to recommend a movie like that.

An algorithm doesn't much care if a movie is artfully crafted, it only cares if people watch what is recommended. In the long run, an algo is more likely to give people what they want than a curator is.

If anything, curators over the long term seem to make a living telling people what they aren't supposed to like (or have access to).

Paid maternity leave doesn't fix time apart from your children over the first two decades of their life.

So, the cost of losing one or both of the programmers in the process must be considered too.

As in, it would have been a solid niche input device, but most games don't need it or benefit greatly from it, so adding $100 to the price of the console made it bad business.

There is some amazing technology there, but as a gamer it didn't make me want it. It was like VR kinda still is - a very cool niche that hasn't caught on yet.

It's okay for niche products to exist and be profitable if you don't require them to sell millions of units.

It's not optimized for individual success at all. So the people who win are those who take individualized action above and beyond the norm.

If you do what everybody else does, you get what everybody else gets.

If you made a model of the world today back in 1920, it would be comical.

Imagine you went back to say 1920 and told people that in 2020 they would be surrounded by talking televisions, phones, that we'd be sending people and ships to the moon, mars, etc. and that they could instantly talk to any person on the planet (including loved ones on the other side of the world), they would not believe you.

In the last 100 years (heck even the last 20-30) we've invented a staggering amount of new and interesting things.

In the last 100 years people created interstate highway systems, nuclear power, the internet, radio data networks, self guided weapons, self guided vehicles, robots, rudimentary AI, etc...

What if in 100 years we make fusion work (probably for space travel/war?) and then we replace the existing infrastructure with that. And what if we can do enough carbon removal or storage to solve this?

Any model that doesn't model the history altering inventiveness of humans is not an accurate model at all. It's just really fancy navel gazing.

In high school football there were guys who with the same amount of training could squat/bench/deadlift considerably more than everyone else. They were stronger/faster and when applied to the right sports they were on another level.

Sure, those less gifted in those areas could train hard to make up some of the difference, but not as much as you'd imagine. If you are short, no matter how hard you train you will be at a disadvantage playing basketball. If you are tall and bigger/overweight, you aren't going to win at cross country distance running.

Humans tend to overvalue magical training and undervalue the existing potential that training reveals.

Once people realize what they've done will they reject corporations, media, and government? If so, where will they turn to?

I suspect that the need for parental moralization of behavior at some tribal level is a group survival mechanism that we can't get rid of.

Regardless of whether it is the church, government, news media, social media, or some corporate policy, it all seems to end up the same from where I sit. Yet, in replacing faith with consumerism or corporatism or governmentism, it seems many people have lost a great deal of hope along the way (see the current mental health crisis for evidence).

It seems people were happier when they left this sort of moral policing to the church/temple/whatever at least they had hope in something positive to keep them going.

Also, people tend to hang out with other people making roughly the same as them, which compounds the problem.

What if the planet got warmer without our input? What then?

IE - the words will change, but the freak out will be the same.

This is a good thing.