Dilbert loses newspapers, publishers, distributor, and possibly its website

[EEVblog]

Damn, someone was quick to publish!
Must be one of those print on demand things, although I didn't know they had that in Australia?

[SiliconWizard]

Damn, someone was quick to publish!
Must be one of those print on demand things, although I didn't know they had that in Australia?

Amazon itself does provide this kind of service, if I'm not mistaken. So it's a very simple matter if you have the books in digital form.

[EEVblog]

Damn, someone was quick to publish!
Must be one of those print on demand things, although I didn't know they had that in Australia?

Amazon itself does provide this kind of service, if I'm not mistaken. So it's a very simple matter if you have the books in digital form.

Yes, I know the US does print on demand, but this one says that it ships from Amazon AU. So I'm wondering if they actually have a local book printer here?

[Zero999]

Damn, someone was quick to publish!
Must be one of those print on demand things, although I didn't know they had that in Australia?

It's interesting they've reduced the prices. I would have expect there would be an increased demand.

I've not read Dilbert before, but there were a few fans in the lab, where I did my apprenticeship, around 20 years ago as there were plenty of Dilbert posters and memes on the walls. Some of them were funny, but I never thought of buying it.

[EEVblog]

It's interesting they've reduced the prices. I would have expect there would be an increased demand.

Amazon are still taking pre-orders for a new Dilbert book. I thought I heard Amazon had "cancelled" him?
I've ordered it, will see if it turns up in April.

[Nominal Animal]

I just watched some The Onion videos on YT from around 2005, and realized that that kind of satire would just not fly today.
Those who get offended on behalf of others would have heart attacks.

[james_s]

I just watched some The Onion videos on YT from around 2005, and realized that that kind of satire would just not fly today.
Those who get offended on behalf of others would have heart attacks.

A friend of mind quipped that "we live in a post-joke world".

[MK14]

As a laugh, I thought I'd get ChatGPT's view on this.  I'm quietly impressed with the results.  Especially with the diagram at the end, which shows an interesting text / picture, at the top of the diagram.  Possibly in an attempt to create AI Dilbert humor.

I asked:

What would Dilbert say, about him being 'cancelled'?

ChatGPT's response:

Dilbert is a fictional character created by Scott Adams, who is known for his satirical take on corporate culture and everyday office life. Given the nature of Dilbert's character and his creator's views on cancel culture, it is likely that he would have a strong opinion on being "cancelled."

If Dilbert were to be cancelled, he might respond with his trademark dry humor and sarcastic wit, suggesting that being cancelled is just another absurdity of modern society. He might also use the situation to make a commentary on the power dynamics at play in cancel culture and how they can be misused to silence dissenting voices.

Alternatively, Dilbert might view being cancelled as a serious threat to his livelihood and reputation. He might go into self-preservation mode, seeking legal recourse or attempting to salvage his public image. Regardless of his response, it is safe to say that Dilbert would have a lot to say on the topic of cancel culture, and his commentary would likely be both insightful and humorous.

I then asked:

Tell me more

ChatGPT's response:

Sure, I can expand on Dilbert's potential views on cancel culture.

Given Scott Adams' public commentary on cancel culture and his libertarian-leaning political views, it's likely that Dilbert would share similar views on the topic. Dilbert might view cancel culture as a form of censorship that stifles free speech and prevents open discussion and debate.

Dilbert might also argue that cancel culture often arises from a mob mentality, in which a vocal minority uses social media to exert power over others and punish those who hold different opinions or make mistakes. He might point out that this can be especially damaging in the workplace, where it can lead to a toxic and divisive environment.

However, it's worth noting that Dilbert's views on cancel culture would likely be nuanced and multifaceted. He might acknowledge that there are legitimate reasons to hold people accountable for their actions, such as instances of hate speech, harassment, or abuse. But he might also argue that cancel culture has gone too far in many cases and is being used to silence dissent and enforce conformity.

Overall, Dilbert's commentary on cancel culture would likely be a mix of satire, humor, and social commentary, reflecting his creator's own views on the topic.

I then asked:

Please draw an ASCII art text diagram, with possible solutions.

ChatGPT's response:

Code: [Select]

  _   _        _  _     _               _             
 | \ | |      (_)| |   (_)             (_)           
 |  \| |  ___  _ | |_   _   ___  _ __   _  ___  _ __
 | . ` | / _ \| || __| | | / _ \| '_ \ | |/ _ \| '__|
 | |\  ||  __/| || |_  | ||  __/| | | || | (_) | |   
 |_| \_| \___||_| \__| |_| \___||_| |_||_|\___/|_|   

           Possible Solutions to a Problem:

            - Brainstorming session
            - Conducting research
            - Seeking expert advice
            - Collaboration with others
            - Trying different approaches
            - Taking a break and returning with a fresh perspective
            - Reframing the problem from a different angle
            - Implementing incremental changes
            - Experimenting with new solutions
            - Reevaluating priorities and goals
            - Seeking feedback and input from stakeholders
            - Learning from past successes and failures


[MK14]

I think what has happened, is quite ridiculous, really.  Why some people get hit by it, while others seem to be immune from it ('cancel', woke).

So, Scott Adams, has his regular (perhaps daily), video blog.  Open to any fans of his, if they want, where he says some stuff.  A bit like he would, if he had friends round, for morning coffee and a group chat, about things.
Which many people do (video blogs), in the modern world.

No one is forced to watch it, he is not ramming stuff down peoples throats.  As Dave has said, if you follow his stuff, regularly.  It is a gentler, less dramatic experience, where he discussing various things.

So, one or more people object to something he says, they then cause a big stir on social media and things and they get the guy 'cancelled'.

Yet, there are people like Elon Musk.  Who, spout stuff rather regularly, which some think is incorrect (bordering on misleading and / or outright lies), unfair to some people (e.g. sacking many people at Twitter, with little or no warning, and probably no fault of their own, or practical ways of avoiding getting sacked).

Who seems to just, survive it all, and any such problems.  Just seem to bounce off them, with no apparent injuries.  Bullet-proof, if you like.

I.e. One set of rules for poor Scott Adams, who gets 'cancelled' for one perceived slight.
And another set of rules, for bullet-proof Elon Musk.

Whose set of followers, seem to be a very powerful, anti-cancel mob, indeed.  Who even might try to 'cancel' any apparent opposition, such as Thunderf00t (a youtube channel, which seems to love to hate, especially Elon Musk, amongst others).

Things get complicated though.  As Elon Musk, seems to be a very big and active supporter, of Scott Adams.  But I couldn't easily think of a valid alternative, except one which is probably best to leave out of this thread, as it can cause political tensions.

[Nominal Animal]

One set of rules for [you], and another set of rules for [us].

This is the key here, multi-rules-ism.  (Edits mine.)
(Or less pointedly, "adjusting rules for more equal outcomes".)

Some say the rules have been skewed for generations, and that the only way to restore balance is to skew the rules the other way.
Some say skewing the rules the opposite way will only repeat the problems, and just target a different group.  The overall result is no better.
Some say the rules aren't really skewed at all in the first place.

I say that regardless of whether the rules are, or have been skewed in the past, the best we can do for everyone is to make the rules as fair as possible for each individual, right now, and in the future.  Even if it does not produce equal outcomes, even when statistically expected to.

It is a very imperfect solution, but better than any of the alternatives.  We cannot fix the past, but we can make the future more fair, more just for everyone, and reduce the total amount of injustice and unfairness in the world this way.

[MK14]

One set of rules for [you], and another set of rules for [us].

This is the key here, multi-rules-ism.  (Edits mine.)
(Or less pointedly, "adjusting rules for more equal outcomes".)

Some say the rules have been skewed for generations, and that the only way to restore balance is to skew the rules the other way.
Some say skewing the rules the opposite way will only repeat the problems, and just target a different group.  The overall result is no better.
Some say the rules aren't really skewed at all in the first place.

I say that regardless of whether the rules are, or have been skewed in the past, the best we can do for everyone is to make the rules as fair as possible for each individual, right now, and in the future.  Even if it does not produce equal outcomes, even when statistically expected to.

It is a very imperfect solution, but better than any of the alternatives.  We cannot fix the past, but we can make the future more fair, more just for everyone, and reduce the total amount of injustice and unfairness in the world this way.

It is tricky to solve.  Because, silencing and/or reining in, possible social media, dislike groups, who want to sometimes, 'cancel' others, in some cases.  Are also, using their rights(s), to free speech.  Which is fundamentally important.

In some cases, the other entity/party/person being 'cancelled', could actually be a bad entity.  That really does need to be cancelled.

It's tricky to solve one problem, without possibly creating other problem(s), which could be considerably worse than the problem, attempting to be solved.

E.g.  This highly annoying to some people, EU cookie nonsense.  Which has partly ruined some peoples, internet experience, efficiency, speed and concentration on the internet.  It is even rumored, now, that some companies still spy/monitor/record users activities, anyway.  Despite so called claims, to the contrary.

[wilfred]

This is the key here, multi-rules-ism.  (Edits mine.)
(Or less pointedly, "adjusting rules for more equal outcomes".)

Some say the rules have been skewed for generations, and that the only way to restore balance is to skew the rules the other way.
Some say skewing the rules the opposite way will only repeat the problems, and just target a different group.  The overall result is no better.
Some say the rules aren't really skewed at all in the first place.

I say that regardless of whether the rules are, or have been skewed in the past, the best we can do for everyone is to make the rules as fair as possible for each individual, right now, and in the future.  Even if it does not produce equal outcomes, even when statistically expected to.

It is a very imperfect solution, but better than any of the alternatives.  We cannot fix the past, but we can make the future more fair, more just for everyone, and reduce the total amount of injustice and unfairness in the world this way.

You're attempting to define Utopia. Which is famously a place that doesn't exist except in one's imagination.

How can you make the rules fair (as possible) for each individual and have them result in unequal outcomes? That's a contradiction of logic. Personally I'm with John Donne, "No man is an island.."

[EEVblog]

So, one or more people object to something he says, they then cause a big stir on social media and things and they get the guy 'cancelled'.

Yet, there are people like Elon Musk.  Who, spout stuff rather regularly, which some think is incorrect (bordering on misleading and / or outright lies), unfair to some people (e.g. sacking many people at Twitter, with little or no warning, and probably no fault of their own, or practical ways of avoiding getting sacked).

Who seems to just, survive it all, and any such problems.  Just seem to bounce off them, with no apparent injuries.  Bullet-proof, if you like.

I.e. One set of rules for poor Scott Adams, who gets 'cancelled' for one perceived slight.
And another set of rules, for bullet-proof Elon Musk.

It's entirely about who has financial control of you.
In the case of Scott Adams he derived a large part of his income from Dilbert that is published in newspapers. The same newpapers that cancelled him already hated his views on things, so it was obvious what they would do. Then he has a syndication company that handles all his other distribution including the Dilbert website and his books, and they took the easy path out under the pressure and cancelled him.
So he got "cancelled" from things where others have financial control of him.
But he was not cancelled from places that don't. He still has his Locals platform, copyright and control of new Dilbert material, books, Youtube, Twitter, Instagram, Facebook platforms, bank etc.

Musk on the other hand is not under financial control of anyone really so he can't be "cancelled"
Same goes for J.K Rowling.

And same goes for small fry like me. As I mentioned before, people have tried to cancel me, but they can't because there is almost no one they can complain to to "cancel" me. All they can do is try and pile on on Twitter and other places and get people to unfollow me. They were so desperate because they couldn't really do anythhing, they had to go after my friends.
To give you an idea of how ineffective this is, my big "cancellation" over that stuff a few years ago resulted in the loss of about 200 Twitter followers. I literally lost 5 times more than that once when I made a dead cat joke and pissed off all the cat lovers.
As I mentioned, if I had an actual day job at an employer you can bet your bottom I would have lost my job by now under pressure from the mob.

The Locals platform (and Subscribestar) started because of all the people that got "cancelled" by Patreon during a big purge of anti-SJW creators.

[MK14]

It's entirely about who has financial control of you.
In the case of Scott Adams he derived a large part of his income from Dilbert that is published in newspapers. The same newpapers that cancelled him already hated his views on things, so it was obvious what they would do. Then he has a syndication company that handles all his other distribution including the Dilbert website and his books, and they took the easy path out under the pressure and cancelled him.
So he got "cancelled" from things where others have financial control of him.
But he was not cancelled from places that don't. He still has his Locals platform, copyright and control of new Dilbert material, books, Youtube, Twitter, Instagram, Facebook platforms, bank etc.

Musk on the other hand is not under financial control of anyone really so he can't be "cancelled"
Same goes for J.K Rowling.

And same goes for small fry like me. As I mentioned before, people have tried to cancel me, but they can't because there is almost no one they can complain to to "cancel" me. All they can do is try and pile on on Twitter and other places and get people to unfollow me.
To give you an idea of how ineffective this is, my big "cancellation" over that stuff a few years ago resulted in the loss of about 200 Twitter followers. I literally lost 5 times more than that once when I made a dead cat joke and pissed off all the cat lovers.
As I mentioned, if I had an actual day job at an employer you can bet your bottom I would have lost my job by now under pressure from the mob.

The Locals platform (and Subscribestar) started because of all the people that got "cancelled" by Patreon during a big purge of anti-SJW creators.

I see.  I hadn't thought of it like that.  So, that could be why they wanted to 'cancel' your friends, as it gives them, more of an attack surface, to concentrate on.  To indirectly, try and get at you.

I suspect, that for each 1,000 subscribers, they manage to 'cancel' from your Twitter account.  Another, approximately 1,000 new Twitter followers, may subscribe to you.  Because the attempted 'cancel', was actually a free advert for your businesses and channels.

I.e. There is no such thing as bad publicity / news.

'There's no such thing as bad publicity' is often associated with Phineas T. Barnum, the 19th century American showman and circus owner. Barnum was a self-publicist of the first order and never missed an opportunity to present his wares to the public. As with many other supposed quotations, there's no hard evidence to link the 'bad publicity' quotation to him.

https://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/there-is-no-such-thing-as-bad-publicity.html

There shouldn't really be all this hate and stuff.  I wonder if the modern, social media trends and that people often don't meet face to face (or even necessarily know peoples real life names), are a factor.  On social media, forums, youtube comments, etc.

Although we are sometimes rude about social media, on this forum.  To a debatable extent, this is a form of social media, for electronics people, and similar.

[fourfathom]

How can you make the rules fair (as possible) for each individual and have them result in unequal outcomes? That's a contradiction of logic.

Hardly.  If I race against Usain Bolt in a sprint, he's going to come in first.  Equal opportunity vs equal outcome.  That's one of the big issues.  But I think you know this already...

[EEVblog]

I see.  I hadn't thought of it like that.  So, that could be why they wanted to 'cancel' your friends, as it gives them, more of an attack surface, to concentrate on.  To indirectly, try and get at you.

Yes, but it's also a show of force by way of intimidation, and an integral part of how the cancel culture woke mob keeps the power that it does. It shows to everyone that even if you are not involved, just being associated with this horrible cancelled person is enough to get you into trouble too. So the fear of having that happen to you puts pressure on you to also publicly pre-emptively denounce your friend or collegue in order to protect yourself. Also, this preys on the whole vitual signalling culture which people love to do these days.

If anyone thinks I'm being hyberbolic, you have no idea how cancel culture works.

I suspect, that for each 1,000 subscribers, they manage to 'cancel' from your Twitter account.  Another, approximately 1,000 new Twitter followers, may subscribe to you.  Because the attempted 'cancel', was actually a free advert for your businesses and channels.

Bingo.
As for Adams, he has gained a huge increase in new Locals members and Twitter followers.

[james_s]

Yes, but it's also a show of force by way of intimidation, and an integral part of how the cancel culture woke mob keeps the power that it does. It shows to everyone that even if you are not involved, just being associated with this horrible cancelled person is enough to get you into trouble too. So the fear of having that happen to you puts pressure on you to also publicly pre-emptively denounce your friend or collegue in order to protect yourself. Also, this preys on the whole vitual signalling culture which people love to do these days.

It's little more than good old fashioned schoolyard bullying, scaled up by way of the internet.

[daqq]

I sometimes wonder if our STEM education can be a bit of a handicap when entering political discourse. We spend years learning to express technical concepts and problems in a precise manner. And maybe that doesn't always translate well to a world where concepts are vague, everything has subtle connotations and context is subjective and varys wildly.

I don't think so - engineering instils many things that I consider virtues in judgement. If nothing else, it instils an appreciation for symmetry - which is the antithesis of the double standards we are experiencing these days. The same rules applied to all things. Symmetry of expectations of people, symmetry of dealing with people. I expect and need the best person available to be hired into the team, regardless of the candidates' race, gender or sexual preference. Instead there's talk of quotas or preferring members of 'underrepresented groups'. The same goes for communication - it's absolutely essential that people can give honest feedback on other people and their work without fear of being branded some kind of -ist.

And as far as I'm concerned, as engineers we have responsibilities to society, to our customers. I don't care if the bridge I walked over yesterday was designed by the most gender balanced and diverse team in Europe, I care whether it was designed by the best team available. If the team was everything-balanced, okay, good for them, but I don't care if it was. If skills take a second place in judging the worth or even expectations of an employee, then something is wrong with the hiring process and you're devaluing what it means to be an engineer or a scientist.

All of this can be applied to society at large as well.

So, yes, some concepts might be somewhat vague and have nuances, but that doesn't mean that you should turn off your engineer brain when judging them.

[Zero999]

So, one or more people object to something he says, they then cause a big stir on social media and things and they get the guy 'cancelled'.

Yet, there are people like Elon Musk.  Who, spout stuff rather regularly, which some think is incorrect (bordering on misleading and / or outright lies), unfair to some people (e.g. sacking many people at Twitter, with little or no warning, and probably no fault of their own, or practical ways of avoiding getting sacked).

Who seems to just, survive it all, and any such problems.  Just seem to bounce off them, with no apparent injuries.  Bullet-proof, if you like.

I.e. One set of rules for poor Scott Adams, who gets 'cancelled' for one perceived slight.
And another set of rules, for bullet-proof Elon Musk.

It's entirely about who has financial control of you.
In the case of Scott Adams he derived a large part of his income from Dilbert that is published in newspapers. The same newpapers that cancelled him already hated his views on things, so it was obvious what they would do. Then he has a syndication company that handles all his other distribution including the Dilbert website and his books, and they took the easy path out under the pressure and cancelled him.
So he got "cancelled" from things where others have financial control of him.
But he was not cancelled from places that don't. He still has his Locals platform, copyright and control of new Dilbert material, books, Youtube, Twitter, Instagram, Facebook platforms, bank etc.

Musk on the other hand is not under financial control of anyone really so he can't be "cancelled"
Same goes for J.K Rowling.

And same goes for small fry like me. As I mentioned before, people have tried to cancel me, but they can't because there is almost no one they can complain to to "cancel" me. All they can do is try and pile on on Twitter and other places and get people to unfollow me. They were so desperate because they couldn't really do anythhing, they had to go after my friends.
To give you an idea of how ineffective this is, my big "cancellation" over that stuff a few years ago resulted in the loss of about 200 Twitter followers. I literally lost 5 times more than that once when I made a dead cat joke and pissed off all the cat lovers.
As I mentioned, if I had an actual day job at an employer you can bet your bottom I would have lost my job by now under pressure from the mob.

The Locals platform (and Subscribestar) started because of all the people that got "cancelled" by Patreon during a big purge of anti-SJW creators.

Where you fall on the intersectionality hierarchy appears to make a difference. Someone from the oppressed class can get away with more, than someone from the oppressor caste. Kanye West had to say some pretty spicy things before he got cancelled. A paler male wouldn't have been granted as much leeway.

[EEVblog]

Where you fall on the intersectionality hierarchy appears to make a difference. Someone from the oppressed class can get away with more, than someone from the oppressor caste. Kanye West had to say some pretty spicy things before he got cancelled. A paler male wouldn't have been granted as much leeway.

Absolutely. On the victim scale a straight white male is one step removed from Hitler. Again, not being hyperbolic. This is how these people think.

[iMo]

I sometimes wonder if our STEM education can be a bit of a handicap when entering political discourse. We spend years learning to express technical concepts and problems in a precise manner. And maybe that doesn't always translate well to a world where concepts are vague, everything has subtle connotations and context is subjective and varys wildly.

I don't think so ..

Hmm, discussing this kind of topics in this highly technical forum, where the vast majority of people are pretty technical, would always lead to the conclusion you've described nicely above as "the things you value". A seasoned politician would tell you - "you are young and naive".

Technical background is generally a handicap, indeed, as the people like you are looking for symmetries, they are searching for a root causes, call the issues straight by their names, try to be precise, value the validated results regardless who and how were achieved, do critical thinking and analysis, etc. etc.

The politics does not work that way, a pity.

Politics is more about MARKETING, where you sell the DREAMS.

That is what people (the masses) like and want - the dreams, the stories about a bright future, showing the root causes of problems which had nothing to do with THEM, showing the ways how to handle problems without to involve THEM in some painful effort, etc.

They do NOT want to listen to you while you are telling them the root cause of a vast majority of their own problems are their own lack of.. (a long list here)..

People/masses do not understand techies well, they do not want to listen to techies, (Germans have a special word for that - "ein Fachidiot", or "ein Fachtrottel" - there is nothing "bad" in the meaning of that word, btw., its a terminus technicus) and generally for that kind of people there is little place in the politics (even the techies believe they can do better politics - but they are usually mistaken in their belief).

[aeberbach]

I wish Gary Larson never stopped creating the Far Side. There were some timeless classics I still remember decades later.

He did stop, but he is starting again! New material is coming... Alongside Bill Watterson I don't think there is a better cartoonist alive. https://www.thefarside.com/new-stuff

[daqq]

Politics is more about MARKETING, where you sell the DREAMS.

That is what people (the masses) like and want - the dreams, the stories about a bright future, showing the root causes of problems which had nothing to do with THEM, showing the ways how to handle problems without to involve THEM in some painful effort, etc.

They do NOT want to listen to you while you are telling them the root cause of a vast majority of their own problems are their own lack of.. (a long list here)..

People/masses do not understand techies well, they do not want to listen to techies, (Germans have a special word for that - "ein Fachidiot", or "ein Fachtrottel" - there is nothing "bad" in the meaning of that word, btw., its a terminus technicus) and generally for that kind of people there is little place in the politics (even the techies believe they can do better politics - but they are usually mistaken in their belief).

I never claimed that engineers make great politicians in the current definition of the word. From what I observed of myself and many others in the field, we have trouble bullshiting our way through a conversation and instead of replying "Sure, can do and even more!" as a reflex, we generally ask follow up questions on the topic and promise a reply by the next week after carefully analysing the problem as much as we can, which instantly disqualifies you from any live political discussion.

I am not saying that we would make great politicians - my point was that for judging things, an engineering background offers a number of tools that allow us to see a problem/solution objectively.

[TomKatt]

So, Scott Adams, has his regular (perhaps daily), video blog.  Open to any fans of his, if they want, where he says some stuff.  A bit like he would, if he had friends round, for morning coffee and a group chat, about things.
Which many people do (video blogs), in the modern world.

No one is forced to watch it, he is not ramming stuff down peoples throats.  As Dave has said, if you follow his stuff, regularly.  It is a gentler, less dramatic experience, where he discussing various things.

So, one or more people object to something he says, they then cause a big stir on social media and things and they get the guy 'cancelled'.

Respectfully disagree.

If what you suggest was actually the case, I'd be inclined to agree with you.

But there have been several interviews with both Adams and people who know him well where it is apparent that Adams intentionally went down this path and fully expected to get 'cancelled'.  He admitted the Rasmussen poll results he pushed were questionable before he even taped the show.  To me, that is not the same thing as just sitting around expressing your personal opinion.

With any freedom comes the responsibility to use it wisely.   IMO "he chose poorly".

[newbrain]

He did stop, but he is starting again! New material is coming...

Don't hold your breath.
That page has been there since July 2020.

EtA:

Alongside Bill Watterson

Oh, and about Bill Watterson, this just was in my YT feed this morning.
What a difference with the professional troll we are discussing about.