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

[m k]

We had usenet. Nothing can compare (favourably) with that

Fido?

I never found any usenet link machines, but it wasn't that big thing back then, and since the company wasn't exactly very small some internal activities were also available.

Later I remember threatened to sue when ISP, out of the blue and in the middle of contract, told they'll drop news, maybe some other things were also emerged.
Then contract ended and NNTP was gone, others didn't support the protocol either, few independent addresses were available but access was limited.

[EEVblog]

On today's livestream Adams finally floated the idea that he should put Dilbert on Twitter Subscriptions for $2/month
I wonder who told him that months ago 

[tggzzz]

Usenet is still there.
But yes, the most popular groups are now infested with spam. There still are a few more niche groups that work well, though.

Comp.arch should still be read by everybody. It is an excellent source with a high SNR.

Yes, this one is good with almost no spam.

There's nothing that I would term "spam" there; the (highly respected) moderator traps out stupidity and anything grossly off-topic. Having said that, there are sometimes informed and pointed and brief discussions of a post/topic.

Fortunately we don't have to rely on gurgle groups to find posts back to 1st August 1985; they are all archived and searchable (using gurgle, naturally) at http://catless.ncl.ac.uk/Risks/ It also has an RSS feed.

[tggzzz]

On today's livestream Adams finally floated the idea that he should put Dilbert on Twitter Subscriptions for $2/month
I wonder who told him that months ago 

Still wouldn't pay.

Something has to be both visible and good for me to release my credit card information. Since he's changed recently and appears to be veering towards a libertarian[1] agenda, I no longer believe his invisible stuff is sufficiently good. I'm not going to pay to have any politics thrust in my face.

[1] politics alert: we've had enough of that in the UK (witness the recent local elections), and libertarianism appears to be in the process of being rebranded to "national conservatism". Somewhere other than here I'd like to see a traditional compare-and-contrast discussion of the dfferences between "national conservatism" and "national socialism".

[EEVblog]

I'm not going to pay to have any politics thrust in my face.

(his) Politics have always been inserted into Dilbert. It's always regularly had an angle of being a piss-take of current politics, be it corporate, social, government, media etc.

[tggzzz]

I'm not going to pay to have any politics thrust in my face.

(his) Politics have always been inserted into Dilbert. It's always regularly had an angle of being a piss-take of current politics, be it corporate, social, government, media etc.

Hmmm.

While there's some degree of validity to that, it is going to depend on the definition of "politics" and what is regarded as being inside/outside that category. To some extent, that will always be a personal value-judgement, in the same vein as the definition of "art".

I would exclude internal corporate/team/project and inter-personal shenanigans as being non-Political (with a capital P).

It becomes less clear-cut where gender/race/religion is involved. Unfortunately warriors of many kinds are becoming involved, and that leads to inhibition and self-censorship - to the detriment of all. My presumption is that behind a paywall, the need to ensure continued payments will bias the drift towards stoking resentment over divisions and attitudes.

Unfortunately the modern trend - that is very visible in (un)social media and becoming more visible in fringe broadcast media - is to emphasise differences and grievances in preference to common ground and beliefs. That creates an emotional response that creates addictive "involvement". I find that reprehensible.

I much prefer open lampooning of silly divisions and attitutes. That's the classic old Dilbert model, amd Adams thoroughly excavated such rich ore deposits. There were signs that (after 30 years) he was finding it difficult to continue making money by mining those deposits. Analogy, in the knowledge that analogies are dangerous: when public businesses reach a plateau and begin to decline, they are often bought by private investors - who then begin to rapaciously exploit their declining customers.

Summary: there's a grey area between good taste and satire on one side, and rabble rousing and hatred on the other. Adams was moving into that grey area, and I presume would accelerate behind a paywall.

[EEVblog]

I'm not going to pay to have any politics thrust in my face.

(his) Politics have always been inserted into Dilbert. It's always regularly had an angle of being a piss-take of current politics, be it corporate, social, government, media etc.

Hmmm.

While there's some degree of validity to that, it is going to depend on the definition of "politics" and what is regarded as being inside/outside that category. To some extent, that will always be a personal value-judgement, in the same vein as the definition of "art".

I would exclude internal corporate/team/project and inter-personal shenanigans as being non-Political (with a capital P).

It becomes less clear-cut where gender/race/religion is involved. Unfortunately warriors of many kinds are becoming involved, and that leads to inhibition and self-censorship - to the detriment of all. My presumption is that behind a paywall, the need to ensure continued payments will bias the drift towards stoking resentment over divisions and attitudes.

Unfortunately the modern trend - that is very visible in (un)social media and becoming more visible in fringe broadcast media - is to emphasise differences and grievances in preference to common ground and beliefs. That creates an emotional response that creates addictive "involvement". I find that reprehensible.

I much prefer open lampooning of silly divisions and attitutes. That's the classic old Dilbert model, amd Adams thoroughly excavated such rich ore deposits. There were signs that (after 30 years) he was finding it difficult to continue making money by mining those deposits. Analogy, in the knowledge that analogies are dangerous: when public businesses reach a plateau and begin to decline, they are often bought by private investors - who then begin to rapaciously exploit their declining customers.

Summary: there's a grey area between good taste and satire on one side, and rabble rousing and hatred on the other. Adams was moving into that grey area, and I presume would accelerate behind a paywall.

It's just a comic. Used to be free, now you either buy it or you don't. No need to hyper analyse IMO.
He has said very specifically in his live shows that he's now free to put stuff in the comic that the newspapers would have previously balked at. He gave some examples that were so mundane you wouldn't even believe anyone would have had an issue with it.
As for upcoming stuff, in the next few weeks Dilbert will be getting a sex bot named Karen.

[tggzzz]

I'm not going to pay to have any politics thrust in my face.

(his) Politics have always been inserted into Dilbert. It's always regularly had an angle of being a piss-take of current politics, be it corporate, social, government, media etc.

Hmmm.

While there's some degree of validity to that, it is going to depend on the definition of "politics" and what is regarded as being inside/outside that category. To some extent, that will always be a personal value-judgement, in the same vein as the definition of "art".

I would exclude internal corporate/team/project and inter-personal shenanigans as being non-Political (with a capital P).

It becomes less clear-cut where gender/race/religion is involved. Unfortunately warriors of many kinds are becoming involved, and that leads to inhibition and self-censorship - to the detriment of all. My presumption is that behind a paywall, the need to ensure continued payments will bias the drift towards stoking resentment over divisions and attitudes.

Unfortunately the modern trend - that is very visible in (un)social media and becoming more visible in fringe broadcast media - is to emphasise differences and grievances in preference to common ground and beliefs. That creates an emotional response that creates addictive "involvement". I find that reprehensible.

I much prefer open lampooning of silly divisions and attitutes. That's the classic old Dilbert model, amd Adams thoroughly excavated such rich ore deposits. There were signs that (after 30 years) he was finding it difficult to continue making money by mining those deposits. Analogy, in the knowledge that analogies are dangerous: when public businesses reach a plateau and begin to decline, they are often bought by private investors - who then begin to rapaciously exploit their declining customers.

Summary: there's a grey area between good taste and satire on one side, and rabble rousing and hatred on the other. Adams was moving into that grey area, and I presume would accelerate behind a paywall.

It's just a comic. Used to be free, now you either buy it or you don't. No need to hyper analyse IMO.

Malefactors use comics too.

I analysed my feelings in order to understand and justify them.

He has said very specifically in his live shows

I won't watch videos unless they indicate in advance how I would benefit from watching the moving pictures.

Typical speech rate: 60wpm. My speedreading rate: ~1000wpm. Reading words enables me to do more than watching 99.9% of videos. I have to carefully allocate my remaining life

that he's now free to put stuff in the comic that the newspapers would have previously balked at. He gave some examples that were so mundane you wouldn't even believe anyone would have had an issue with it.
As for upcoming stuff, in the next few weeks Dilbert will be getting a sex bot named Karen.

I can believe it People can be too touchy, especially when satire hits the mark.

But that doesn't invalidate my fears/presumptions.

[EEVblog]

I won't watch videos unless they indicate in advance how I would benefit from watching the moving pictures.
Typical speech rate: 60wpm. My speedreading rate: ~1000wpm. Reading words enables me to do more than watching 99.9% of videos. I have to carefully allocate my remaining life

Luckily you don't have too, I just gave you the overview.

But that doesn't invalidate my fears/presumptions.

Meh. You either pay $2 and read it for a month, or you don't. If you don't, you'll never know if you still like Dilbert or not.
I haven't seen the new stuff as I'm not paying $7/month on Locals. $2/month on Twitter just for the comic I'd be happy to pay though. I'm actually keen to see the sex bot strips, sounds funny.
I do have an account and follow him on Locals and that occasionally shows some Robots Reads News strips.

[tggzzz]

I won't watch videos unless they indicate in advance how I would benefit from watching the moving pictures.
Typical speech rate: 60wpm. My speedreading rate: ~1000wpm. Reading words enables me to do more than watching 99.9% of videos. I have to carefully allocate my remaining life

Luckily you don't have too, I just gave you the overview.

Did he really need an entire video to float "the idea that he should put Dilbert on Twitter Subscriptions for $2/month"?
Seems like you managed to sum up the information (and avoid the noise) with only a few words. Good tradeoff, showing consideration for the readers

(BTW, with your yootoob vids summaries containing pointers to the "chapter headings" are sufficient information for me to decide to watch or not. Thanks for that consideration.)

But that doesn't invalidate my fears/presumptions.

Meh. You either pay $2 and read it for a month, or you don't. If you don't, you'll never know if you still like Dilbert or not.
I haven't seen the new stuff as I'm not paying $7/month on Locals. $2/month on Twitter just for the comic I'd be happy to pay though. I'm actually keen to see the sex bot strips, sounds funny.
I do have an account and follow him on Locals and that occasionally shows some Robots Reads News strips.

I opened a "Locals" account and read it daily for a week. All it contained was "not showing you this", "not showing you this", ... "not showing you this".

Unsurprisingly I gave up.

There are far too many interesting things around to worry about one of them disappearing.

[EEVblog]

Did he really need an entire video to float "the idea that he should put Dilbert on Twitter Subscriptions for $2/month"?

He does a daily 1hr live show and it contains daily news analysis, advice, updates on Dilbert and him etc
If you want short text, try following hm on Twitter.

Meh. You either pay $2 and read it for a month, or you don't. If you don't, you'll never know if you still like Dilbert or not.
I haven't seen the new stuff as I'm not paying $7/month on Locals. $2/month on Twitter just for the comic I'd be happy to pay though. I'm actually keen to see the sex bot strips, sounds funny.
I do have an account and follow him on Locals and that occasionally shows some Robots Reads News strips.

I opened a "Locals" account and read it daily for a week. All it contained was "not showing you this", "not showing you this", ... "not showing you this".
Unsurprisingly I gave up.

Err, yeah, you have to pay $7 on locals. Wait until Twitter subscriptions works and you'll get just Dilbert for $2/month.

[ebastler]

Oh yeah, Twitter Subscriptions. Right up there with Tucker Carlson. Birds of a feather...

[wilfred]

a daily 1hr live show and it contains daily news analysis, advice, updates on Dilbert and him etc
If you want short text, try following hm on Twitter.

If anyone wants to know what to think you can watch him free on Youtube. His channel is "Real Coffee with Scott Adams"

The channel description is
"Scott Adams (famous for creating Dilbert) is a trained hypnotist, and is widely recognized as an expert on persuasion. Adams has emerged as one of the most influential observers of politics in the United States. His bestselling book, "Win Bigly," teaches persuasion, and his bestselling book "How to Lose Almost Every Time and Still Win Big" is widely considered the best book ever written on developing systems for success. His most recent book is Loserthink, which teaches you how to avoid it. If you enjoy learning how to be more effective in life while catching up with the interesting news, this is the channel for you."

I don't know if the claim he is one of the most influential observers of politics in the US is his own opinion or someone elses.

But if you can't draw your own conclusions he is ready to tell you what to think. 


I don't sit way over on the right with his politics but I did find it interesting to watch how he works. For a few episodes at least.  Not that I'm claiming to be clever in working it out. He's not subtle. Although if you see me clucking like a chicken he may have hypnotised me. Maybe. 

[thinkfat]

I found "Dilbert" to be funny because it somehow touched a string in me, having the "knack" and being a full-on nerd. But reading Scott Adams blog sort of undid that. Especially the piece he wrote justifying men's predatory behavior towards women because women actually appreciate it even if the say "no".

[ebastler]

I found "Dilbert" to be funny because it somehow touched a string in me, having the "knack" and being a full-on nerd. But reading Scott Adams blog sort of undid that. Especially the piece he wrote justifying men's predatory behavior towards women because women actually appreciate it even if the say "no".

Exactly my feelings about Adams. And all the "master persuader" posts about Trump didn't help either. "Look how brilliant I am, because I can understand how brilliant Trump is!" 

[EEVblog]

Oh yeah, Twitter Subscriptions. Right up there with Tucker Carlson. Birds of a feather...

Dumbest take ever. Go find and subscribe to someone you like then. Twitter is just a platform.
I've signed up for twitter subscriptions, will offer it once it's approved. Been three weeks now though...

[EEVblog]

I don't know if the claim he is one of the most influential observers of politics in the US is his own opinion or someone elses.

It's not inaccurate. He is very influential.

I don't sit way over on the right with his politics but I did find it interesting to watch how he works. For a few episodes at least.  Not that I'm claiming to be clever in working it out. He's not subtle. Although if you see me clucking like a chicken he may have hypnotised me. Maybe.

The live shows can be hit and miss. Might take dozen or so until you find a real gem of a take that you like.
He also has "micro lessons" a few minutes long on the white board. Hundreds of them on Locals, but some are free on Youtube if you search. Again, hit and miss.
You mostly listen to the live shows for his takes on news stories of that day. Although he makes predictions, he is very much a fence sitter. But the explainations of things can be interesting.

[Nominal Animal]

But the explainations of things can be interesting.

This.

I don't read what others write or listen to what others say because of their opinions, I do that to see what they see and base their opinions on.

I've found there are two kinds of people: the kind that demands others agree because they are the authority on a subject (or because their opinion by itself ought to have sufficient weight/value/importance), and the kind that explains their reasoning and basis.  Surprisingly many of the popular newspeople/pundits/commentators/politicians are in the former group, when you start really listening.

[ebastler]

Oh yeah, Twitter Subscriptions. Right up there with Tucker Carlson. Birds of a feather...

Dumbest take ever. Go find and subscribe to someone you like then. Twitter is just a platform.
I've signed up for twitter subscriptions, will offer it once it's approved. Been three weeks now though...

If that's where you want to be... guess you gotta make money.

Please, just make sure that you don't follow the Scott Adams trajectory in other respects: Once liked for a unique take on the office landscape, or electronics as the case may be. Then becoming increasingly convinced that he needs to (and has the calibre to) fix the world. I found that embarrassing and annoying to watch.

[tggzzz]

Oh yeah, Twitter Subscriptions. Right up there with Tucker Carlson. Birds of a feather...

Dumbest take ever. Go find and subscribe to someone you like then. Twitter is just a platform.
I've signed up for twitter subscriptions, will offer it once it's approved. Been three weeks now though...

If that's where you want to be... guess you gotta make money.

Please, just make sure that you don't follow the Scott Adams trajectory in other respects: Once liked for a unique take on the office landscape, or electronics as the case may be. Then becoming increasingly convinced that he needs to (and has the calibre to) fix the world. I found that embarrassing and annoying to watch.

That's a depressingly common trajectory.

It isn't, of course, confined to far-right nuts, since far-left nuts are equally prone to it. And so are people who are intelligent in some respects but not in others, like Linus Pauling and Francis Crick.

[EEVblog]

Oh yeah, Twitter Subscriptions. Right up there with Tucker Carlson. Birds of a feather...

Dumbest take ever. Go find and subscribe to someone you like then. Twitter is just a platform.
I've signed up for twitter subscriptions, will offer it once it's approved. Been three weeks now though...

If that's where you want to be... guess you gotta make money.

Seriously? Just because I'm on Twitter? WTF.
I've been on Twitter for 14 years and have 58k followers. Of course I'm going to try the new subscription program. And I'm also now posting my videos natively there too, I'd be a fool not too. And it's going well BTW, thanks for asking.
Your head might explode if you know my videos are also on Odysee, Bitchute, and Rumble.

Please, just make sure that you don't follow the Scott Adams trajectory in other respects: Once liked for a unique take on the office landscape, or electronics as the case may be. Then becoming increasingly convinced that he needs to (and has the calibre to) fix the world. I found that embarrassing and annoying to watch.

Seriously, chill out.

[EEVblog]

But the explainations of things can be interesting.

This.

I don't read what others write or listen to what others say because of their opinions, I do that to see what they see and base their opinions on.

I've found there are two kinds of people: the kind that demands others agree because they are the authority on a subject (or because their opinion by itself ought to have sufficient weight/value/importance), and the kind that explains their reasoning and basis.  Surprisingly many of the popular newspeople/pundits/commentators/politicians are in the former group, when you start really listening.

To me the worst kind of people are those that judge you and criticise you because you watch someones stuff, or follow them on Twitter, or worst of all I think, use some platform that has people they don't like on it.
Pathetic is the word I'm looking for I think.

[.RC.]

Once liked for a unique take on the office landscape, or electronics as the case may be. Then becoming increasingly convinced that he needs to (and has the calibre to) fix the world. I found that embarrassing and annoying to watch.

At the end of the day, are the comics still not funny though? I do not mind someone saying something that might be thought provoking or threaten my view of the world and make me question my beliefs to make sure I still think they are accurate.

I know people who think trump is a great person and are not afraid to tell you, I know people who think he is a crook and are not afraid to tell you.  They are all still decent people though and I am not about to cancel them because of one opinion they have.  I will listen to them and make up my own mind.  If they go out and start clubbing baby platypus while singing the Taliban national anthem, yea well maybe I will re-access my interactions with them but otherwise...

I did not go out and buy a 4ch oscilloscope just because "someone" said to in this day and age. I took that advice onboard and made my own mind up and if I did not agree with that "someone", I would hardly cancel them.

[EEVblog]

Please, just make sure that you don't follow the Scott Adams trajectory in other respects: Once liked for a unique take on the office landscape, or electronics as the case may be. Then becoming increasingly convinced that he needs to (and has the calibre to) fix the world. I found that embarrassing and annoying to watch.

What's wrong with wanting to help people and/or shape the world? Sounds more like you are maybe a tad jelous because you don't have the skills or influence to do that perhaps?
He has over 100k followers on Locals, 145k Youtube subs, and almost 1M twitter followers. Not to mention his self help books are massively popular. Like New York Times best selling popular. Must be doing something people are interested in.

For what it's worth, I've taken him to task on several BS claims he's made, and he even admitted he was wrong and corrected his opinion on one of his shows because of me. He does it all the time actually.

[ebastler]

At the end of the day, are the comics still not funny though?

When they were still accessible on the dilbert.com site, I saw few that I found funny. It increasingly felt like Adams did not want to share funny or absurd observations, but make a point.

I did not go out and buy a 4ch oscilloscope just because "someone" said to in this day and age. I took that advice onboard and made my own mind up and if I did not agree with that "someone", I would hardly cancel them.

Sure, same here. But if a video I am watching to learn about oscilloscopes were to suddenly branch out into some political agenda, I would find that annoying and probably stop watching that video. (And, if this experience repeats regularly, stop watching that channel.) That was my point above.