@Mmccue I was being sarcastic, I think the fediverse is about improving how people use social media- not driving all existing social media extinct. The idea that people would be unhappy that enormous companies are adopting the fediverse, which inherently loosens their grip on their audience and relinquished some of their power- it seems insane. Pre-emptive defederation seems insane.
@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.
@ZeroCool @qooqie @PapaStevesy the witch cursed Narnia so that it’s always winter and never Christmas.
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.
@ThatOneKirbyMain2568 they only work if people care about it, so double edged sword.
@Whiskeyomega I couldn’t even finish this. It made me so fucking mad.
@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.
Might be mixing it up with another card, Reliquary Tower has no land subtype. It gives you no max hand size and taps for {C}.
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.
@delitomatoes @NABDad @danielbln @fartsparkles @Potatos_are_not_friends
Fair points, I have only watched a few episodes myself and was merely copying the source since others weren’t seeing it.
@delitomatoes @NABDad @danielbln @fartsparkles
There are examples in the second link, but I can paste them here for you:
Scrubs:
J.D. started as fairly emotionally needy due to him wanting a father figure to replace his own dysfunctional family. Fast forward to season five where J.D. is an appletini (light on the tini)-swilling “sensey” (that’s “sensitive person”) who can’t hold on to his “man cards” (which would be taken away from him if he did something girly) for a full day. This is lampshaded by Zach Braff in the bloopers to Season 8.
“You haven’t been here in a while, my character’s really gay now.”
Carla was initially a tough cookie Team Mom. As the seasons went on, the writers Flanderised her obsession with gossip and her domineering tendencies over Turk. She also went from giving advice to forcing her opinions on everyone else and admitting that taking the moral high ground “is like crack for me”.
Elliot went from being a pretty normal, slightly quirky, girl with no interest in kids and a high degree of efficiency coupled with no personal skills to highly neurotic, obsessed with getting married and having kids, and the most compassionate doctor in the hospital that was only there because she wanted to help people. The family part is at least somewhat justified by the fact that she as she got old she had a stronger desire to settle down.
It sucks when a show is spinning it’s wheels and a significant actor moves on to greener pastures, but you get it. It really sucks when a show rockets off and actors leave because the show has made them into a star who get offered bigger projects to capitalize on their fame. Mucking things up for the thing that made you famous is such BS.
@delitomatoes Many sitcoms have an overarching romance arc between two leads that gets stretched out for eternity. I don’t know how much I can vouch for “The Office” handling other storylines, but the getting Pam and Jim together 1/3rd of the way through the series, and then not having them constantly breaking up and dating other people and then getting back together (like Friends) was a real breath of fresh air. The show really proved they could survive as an anthology without having the main romantic arc to fall back on. Of course, later on they introduce serious romantic arcs for other characters.
@Madison_rogue it does. The artwork was detected as being created with AI due to significant quality issues, not through thorough forensic analysis/mathematical models.
@picandocodigo @slimerancher I think you’re underselling how important the price cuts were to the PS2’s longevity, and I don’t think Nintendo is willing to go nearly that far. The PS2, like the Nintendo Switch, launched at $299. 2 years later it dropped to $199. Then steady price cuts all the way to $129 preceeding the launch of the PS3 in 2006 at $499/$599. I think it’s safe to say that the enormous price difference played a huge role in it’s ongoing sales past the PS3 launch. PS2 launched in March 2000, and 7 years later it had sold 117 million units, taking us just a few months past the PS3 launch. In the next 5 years the PS2 sales racked up another 40 million units, or about 25% of all PS2’s sold occurred after it’s successor’s launch.
If the Switch were to follow the same trajectory and a Switch 2 launched this holiday season, we’d see another 40+ million units sold over the next 5 years, ending in over 170 million units sold. But there are a number of reasons to doubt this will happen.
#1 there might literally just not be enough chips left to do that- it’s speculated that Nvdia stopped production of the chips and there’s a finite number left, which may fall short of that goal.
#2 Nintendo seems very reluctant to drop prices. The PS2 by this point was less than half of the launch price and only 65% of its cost after the first major price drop. The Switch is 100% of its launch price, and I believe in some regions it even got a price hike.
#3 it seems implausible that the Switch 2 will cost as much as a PS3 did at launch (more expensive than the Series S and PS5 digital, equivalent to Series X and PS5 disc). That means the price delta between the Switch and Switch 2 will necessarily be far narrower than the PS2/PS3, so continued sales after the Switch 2 launch are unlikely to be as robust.
#4 Sony wasn’t trying to pump up the PS2 numbers, selling it nearly until the PS4 came out was a strange phenomenon born of unusual circumstances. I don’t think Nintendo will have any interest in selling the Switch alongside it’s successor except to clear out inventory, for the same reason the Wii U and Switch V1 were both discontinued promptly after their successor’s came out.
@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
I appreciate that you’re attempting to put this in formal logical terms, but I think you’re a little out of your depth. Your interlocutor was simply asserting that you are discounting the validity of systemic critique. He didn’t imply that you had any position whatsoever on guns. He said your argument, if applied elsewhere, would lead to absurd results.
A strawman would be saying that you denied criticizing systems is ever valuable, and it’s all down to personal responsibility. That’s somewhat similar to what you said, but by reframing it as an absolute rule, it would be much easier to counter.
You’re somewhat struggling to formulate the syllogisms here. I’ll present the interlocutor’s argument more precisely.
P1. If an argument works just as well to justify doing nothing to address systemic causes of gun violence, it is a poor argument.
P2. Your argument works just as well to justify…
C. Your argument is a poor argument.
Here would be your original syllogism.
P1. A system of rules that prioritizes freedom should not be blamed for actions of people who purposely abuse that freedom.
P2. The person who responded this way to downvote was misusing free access to downvote information.
C. Kbin’s system that prioritizes freedom is blameless for a user responding to downvotes.
And here’s how we would apply that to gun violence
P1. A system of rules that prioritizes freedom should not be blamed for actions of people who purposely abuse that freedom.
P2. A person who commits gun violence is misusing that freedom.
C. The USA’s laws that priotize freedom is blameless for gun violence.
@EnglishMobster @KairuByte an analogy isn’t a strawman. He didn’t say you were trivializing gun violence. He said the defense you used was faulty because it could just as readily be deployed to something more clearly harmful. It doesn’t even prove the thing you are defending is bad, it just demonstrates that your argument defending it is a bad one.
@jwr1
@Damaskox Apple Store- does this mean you’d rewrite for iOS, or is it already compatible? If so, would you be able to throw up a .IPA on the github? With a stock iPhone, users can sideload apps for testing purposes for up to a week at a time- you wouldn’t need to make testflight or put it on the store until you are ready. Altserver is something people use to refresh the permission indefinitely.