• 1 Post
  • 41 Comments
Joined 1 year ago
cake
Cake day: June 9th, 2023

help-circle


  • @ThatOneKirbyMain2568 we have to preemptively defederate with any corporation! The fediverse must always stay small and never improve other companies. The vision is for open technology that few can use, right? I’m just worried that if Flipboard helps make the fediverse more appealing by providing more content for our users, that they can pull a fast one and defederate from us later, and then all of our users will leave and go to Flipboard instead! The only way to prevent that from happening is to make sure they never hear about Flipboard in the first place. Please reference any arguments used for defederating from Meta if you need more “sky is falling” arguments to whip you into a frenzy of senseless fear.


  • @jossbo

    @anemomylos

    from reading the comments, it sounds like the pixel pass bundle was just a convenient way to bundle, paying for the device as well as other Google services. It wasn’t an upgrade program. At the end of two years, you still would have to buy a new phone if you wanted to upgrade.

    from the description, it originally sounded to me like you paid a little extra every month to get a free upgrade every two years, and presumably you would have to trade in the old device. that’s apparently not the case. The stuff about being on the newest pixel device every two years was apparently telling you that after two years, you could buy a new bundle, linking your phone payment and other Google services. The benefit seems like it was very dubious to begin with- basically just a promise that you could buy a new pixel phone a google service bundle after you pay off the first one.

    from what I’m understanding about the announcement, people who have purchased a pixel pass, will continue paying the same price for their bundle until the phone is payed off, but once the phone is payed off the promise of being able to do it again is broken. They can still buy a new phone, but they can’t bundle the payment with Google services. So, at the very least, they did break their promise. But they probably can’t be sued for much of anything since there wasn’t a free upgrade being offered down the road, the promise was just, if you buy this today, you can buy it again later. No discount or special deal for buying it later, everyone who would have bought a pixel pass for the pixel 8 had it been offered would pay the same price, regardless of whether they purchased a pixel pass previously. so that promise has very little monetary value since pixel pass owners weren’t accruing any future benefit with respect to upgrading.


  • @blanketswithsmallpox

    @iridaniotter @BarrelAgedBoredom

    Yeah, non-trans women don’t enjoy being forever 2nd because they weren’t born men in physically competitive sport

    Some sports just have totally dominant competitors. I don’t think all the men who lost to Michael Phelps enjoyed losing to him because they didn’t get to be born complete genetic freaks that look like they were engineered in a lab to win at swimming. In many women’s sports, the top (cis) competitors tend to have really beneficial genetics, including really high levels of testosterone compared to average. Losing to someone because their genetics help them be faster/stronger/taller is just how it goes in competitive sports. Losing to a trans woman is no different than losing to a cis woman who hit the genetic lottery.



  • @Madison_rogue I’ve heard there’s some debate over how much the refund should be for. The obvious complication is that, the actual price they paid matches what they expected to pay, the issue being that the list price was faked. I think the refund should take the advertised discount (60% off) and apply it to the real lost price, and refund them the difference. That makes the consumer whole, providing them the discount they were told they were receiving.

    Then, the fine they receive on top of that should be double. Send a strong message that if you defraud consumers, it’s going to hurt. If all 5300 monitors cost the example price of $990, then the refund amount would be $600 each, for a total of 3.15 million in refunds and 6.3 million in fines. Sounds like this might be exactly what regulators had in mind since my number came pretty close to theirs. Dell is extremely fortunate they sold so few monitors. Because the advertised discount was so high, the fines alone appear to more than wipe out the revenue they made from these monitors, and whatever refunds they have to pay out on top of that puts them even further in the hole. Crime doesn’t always pay.



  • @wjrii

    @Madbrad200

    my experience is eerily similar to yours. Used it a bit in the first few days, popped in on occasion. Deleted my account today. When I first went on, one of the questions I asked was “is this FOSS or privately owned” and got bombarded with that cadre of users explaining why it’s better and safer for it to be owned by one person and that Jake would never make bad decisions like this exact one. At one point a user was being so agressive about how I should just trust Jake that I said I must be talking to his mom.

    I also briefly had a Voat account when I thought Reddit was cracking down too much/too arbitrarily, and quickly realized that I was not in good company. I’ve been very optimistic about this Reddit exodus because it really doesn’t have the same ideological bent to it, so the diaspora isn’t just the dregs of reddit.



  • @slimerancher

    @picandocodigo it’s averaging about 20M units a year, so assuming Switch 2 makes the Switch 1 totally obsolete, we’d need another year+ of strong sales to rise to number one. If the Switch 1 continues to be sold after Switch 2 is released (not fully backwards compatible, Switch 1 price drop, Switch 2 is just more expensive), then less than a year or strong sales plus another couple years of long tail sales to get over the hump.

    If it overtakes, I can imagine the most likely scenario to make it happen are - Switch 2 is considered unambiguous successor at $350-$400, Switch 1 price drop of only like $25-$50, basically just to clearance out the old stock, except no switch lite replacement for the first year, so the now $150-$175 switch lite continues to to rack up sales at a ridiculously apealing price. Obviously they could easily reach 1at place if they did a really agressive price drop but that doesn’t seem likely for nintendo at all- a small price drop on the lite, especially if the choices are $150 Lite, $250 V2, $300 OLED, $400 Switch 2



  • @palordrolap

    @Haus antivax “just asking questions” bullshit has made us all so cagey about asking genuine questions. Really sucks. I hate that so muvh conspiracy bullshit gets spread via asking loaded disingenuous questions.

    I know what you’re talking about, basically if the virus mutates the thing that vaccines target, there didn’t seem like a very likely pathway to mutate and remain highly contagious. That’s not necessarily a general vaccine rule, but it applies to the covid 19 spike protein. No idea how this news relates to that and would love to have some really smart person show up and explain it. Maybe Hank Green will do a video on it?



  • @numnum

    @skhayfa your wording is a little confusing - you said this will only bring them to $21, and and that they were hoping for more than $10. A) this will bring them to $21 today, with 4 more guaranteed yearly increases bringing the total to $28.52. B) if I’m understanding correctly, minimum pay today is $18.25, so this would cumulatively be a $10.27 raise over 5 years.

    What would an actually good contract look like? To me, I can definitely understand why this would be dissapointing. But I can also understand why some people would be willing to accept a greater than 50% wage increase over 5 years as a win.


  • @Gutotito

    @Snorf

    To be clear, this wasn’t a zygote, which would be a fertilized cell. This was a fetus at week 23, which is later than most abortions are performed without fetal abnormalities. Less than 1% of abortions are performed that late. A fetus may be considered viable around that point as well (this would be on the extreme end though). Many pro-choice people base their justification around fetal viability and don’t necessarily feel great about abortions performed after that much development.

    I’m not trying to justify these charges, but let’s steer away front hyperbole. Prior to Dobbs, a state could have restricted access to abortion in this same way. Saying “zygote” implies this could happen to anyone who gets an abortion, which simply isn’t implied by this decision.



  • @Saganastic

    @SCmSTR @bazus1 @SaltySalamander

    When I ran into issues with too many people trying to stream at once, I had to upgrade to the most premium subscription which allows 4 simultaneous streams. Whether it was a black letter rule or not, the “more money for more simultaneous streams” policy goes hand in hand with shared accounts. How many households are going to need to simultaneously stream 4 different Netflix streams at the same time? Not to mention other oddities.

    1. they just developed the profile transfer feature alongside the password sharing crackdown. Previously, they supposedly didn’t want people in different households to share an account, but had no solution for if you left a household.

    2. this gives a strong preference to households over families, which is not how other internet services work. When you send your kid to college, each year they need to make a new shared Netflix account with whichever roommate they have, and even mid-year if their roommates change. They can’t share with their own parents. Imagine if cellphone family plans worked that way?

    3. why did they stop advertising that premium plans increase the number of people who can watch simultaneously? When I go to select a plan on Netflix right now, it’s now religsted to a footnote. It used to be a prominent feature. It would seem to me that they are aware how counter-intuitive and misleading it is to advertise the amount of simultaneous streams your allowed when it’s already limited to household members.