@@LiveTypeit depends on if you mean purely money made by streaming vs viewer’s salaries. Or all money made from people who stream vs viewer’s salaries. But the question could be taken as ‘chatting in twitch makes more money than streaming’ which isn’t true
Blizzard CEO is sooo valuable, Bobby Kotick. I just can't imagine how Activision Blizzard could have ran themselves into the ground so hard, while min/maxing their stock prices to upsell to a stupid Microsoft.
@@jonathanarcher5356 If an AI could get us (humans) to properly document everything it needed to calculate how many people actually needed to be hired, and it knew and followed the laws, and had data on when, and on average how many breaks are taken in what positions each month, etc, probably a lot of stuff Im not smart enough to think of. It could probably get us to run a well organized and hopefully humane company, if it follows all the laws and understands the research behind treating people humanely increases individual performance, and that steady growth is better for shareholders long-term than mass sell-outs to keep stock price at a un-maintainable high for a quick squeeze
The median editor and moderator makes $0 while the median streamer makes >$0, making the ratio of far more extreme than the ratio of CEO to employee. Truly late stage capitalism.
Downtown LA seems like a big stickler for me. Lots of people actively recommend not staying there and some seem to suggest not even going there if you visit the city. That is actually insane.
Grand central market is pretty dope, other than that, theres really not a reason to go unless u wanna see all the touristy stuff. Its not downtown but id highly recommend the Petersen Automotive Museum if youre even remotely into cars. They had a BADASS Mad Max exhibit that had a bunch of the cars from Fury Road
I'm sorry "not even one tenth as good"? wtf are you smoking? I'll accept that its not as good as some GTA games as a whole package but it is actually a good game.
Similar to the Michael Reeves vid I have seen this but I really like Good Work's videos and like Atrioc's takes on business and brands would watch again
The thing about video game stories sucking often is so true. Crazy how a game with millions in funding makes a worse story than something like celeste which is just pixelated characters talking with text boxes. Outer wilds took kind of an odd route with the storytelling, and I'd say the story is kind of in the back seat to the gameplay, and yet that game's story is way better than almost every triple A game released in the last few years.
You do extremely well: Your stocks are worth much more. You do very poorly: You get extra money for leaving early. The more extreme you are, the better for you, no matter the results.
Haha the Elon Musk thing is so funny. I sent it to my friend who owns a bunch of Tesla and said "yo dude you can actually vote against his pay package, sick !!!"
If you watched his latest Atrioc video, the Summer Game Fest one, he announces at the end he will be hosting a venue at Twitch Con, San Diego as a mini concert for all of the great musicians in the community.
@@hastyscorpionyes but during the reddit recap he was reminded he signed up to do a stream with the devs and was going to do 2 streams in 1 day. I guess that means he overslept and missed the schedule.
200x is a lot but tbh prob still underpaid. Capitalism is a weird system as it hits the late stage. I mean I really don't want a CEO that is 1 in 200 person. If I can grab random 200 people and find the right CEO, that seems like a bargain. The assumption is that money has diminishing return; a person if paid 200x more than a high school graduate, they would take the job even though they are 1 in 1,000,000 skill level.
That isn’t given though. The question is what percentage better is the 1 in 100,000 person than the 1 in 200 person. If they 5000% better then yeah maybe it’s worth it. If they are 5% better then no it’s not worth it at all. You would be much better off spending that money on other parts of your business. If I can get a CEO that does 95% of what the 1 in 100k CEO does for .2% of the price that is obviously the correct choice from a business perspective. There are other incentives and forces that impact how well a company does we don’t really know what percentage of impact a 1 in 100k ceo has versus a 1 in 200 ceo. I suspect it’s less than the CEOs would like you to believe.
