I don’t think anybody keeps cleaning agents and food ingredients in the same place, I definitely don’t, don’t know anybody who does, so it’s logical to assume it should be the same in restaurants
Totally agree on that point. I took it more to mean it could be fatal if someone went to refill a jar of vinegar with bleach (or vice versa) since mixing the two creates chlorine gas which can be fatal.
aside from the obvious “rich people exploiting the environment with their hippy party that costs $200 for their cheapest tickets,” I saw a video online that brought up a good point that I never considered. The cost of lumber has increased exponentially in the past 3 years alone, jumping to nearly $1700 per 1000 feet at its peak in 2021, but staying between $400 and $600 per 1000 feet in recent months (still high compared to say 10 years ago.) And these people are buying tens of thousands of feet of lumber solely to burn it away in the middle of nowhere where there’s little vegetation to absorb the excess CO2 waste. That, along with the climate change protesters being police brutalized just before the event, really puts a sour taste in people’s mouths. Especially in a time where “once in a lifetime” weather events seem to be back-to-back.
Tickets cost about 10x that. I was interested back when it was a cool art exchange, freedom event. But SO many people flock to it as a giant party that it’s become restrictive unless your volunteering or bringing an exhibit.
Everything is “carbon neutral” on a long enough timescale. One of many reasons why that expression is 100% unadulterated bollocks. If you’re an airline, you can’t just offset the damage you do by paying a Bangladeshi farmer two dollars to throw some tree seeds on the ground.
Burning man should become Burried man. Everybody should dig a hole and burry the wood. That is carbon capture.
I am not an expert. So this could just be a naive take. I wouldn’t be surprised burying wood actually amplifies the carbon emissions due to some reactions with soil, or something.
I mean, decomposition releases methane over time, slower than burning does, but buried wood in the desert is more likely to petrify than rot. There’s a lot to be said for burying wood in certain situations. Hugelkultur (making agricultural/garden mounds out of wood and soil) if done right can do amazing things (everything from creating microclimates that increase biodiversity to supercharging the soil with beneficial fungi/bacteria, to increasing water retention).
I would think the biggest pollutant there would be all the fuel.
Getting there and back (and the location could be charitably described as the arse end of nowhere), all the rented RVs with the air con running… Burning a wooden effigy wouldn’t even come close.
Also John Wilson tried to go shoot at the event and after compiling hours of footage was told that he couldn’t use any of it because there was some exclusive licensed coverage provider for the event.
Yesterday in the US it was labour day, 100 of millions of Americans has a BBQ many using coal and wood the impact of burning man is insignificant in comparison
And these people are buying tens of thousands of feet of lumber solely to burn it away in the middle of nowhere where there’s little vegetation to absorb the excess CO2 waste.
That’s not really how plants work.
Photosynthesis turns co2 + water into sugar + oxygen. Cellular respiration turns sugar + oxygen into co2 + water.
The total co2 absorbed by a plant is exactly equal to the amount of co2 used to make all the sugar, cellulose, etc. the plant currently has. Digestion, decomposition, fires etc. undo that.
A mature forest or lawn is carbon neutral: new growth is balanced out by decomposition of old growth.
Distance to plants doesn’t matter. What matters is if and how the trees they’re burning are being replanted or replaced. .
It is so ironic that SEO has become the very problem it was invented to fix: all these jokers gaming the system have all but plunged us all back into prehistoric internet times, before search engines appeared and people had to remember which specific sites to go to find information online.
The problem is that monied interests want to control the spin on information, just as General Electric was able to strictly govern television news during the cold war, and the George W. Bush administration and the military industrial complex wanted to control the newspapers and news sites during the war on terror (and game reviews occasionally gave below 7.0 out of 10)
Truth leaks to the people though novel means of communication, sadly with all the rumors. And any time a fact-checking service develops a reputation for veracity, it’s going to face pressure to close, such as Snopes; or pressure to adhere to company marketing guidelines such as Wikipedia, for whom Kelloggs Company and the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints both have a marketing subdepartment devoted to assuring no controversies or elaborations will stay on their respective Wikipedia pages without a generous dollop of hagiography.
So yes, figuring out the real deal is still art form like processing data to get intel. For old stuff (e.g. Brigham Young’s randy exploits seducing young girls with religious mandates) we look for the theses that point to primary sources. But for new stuff, we cross-examine multiple news reports for the consistent facts, and avoid interpretation.
As for product information, yes it’s often to find out important stuff like how secure your IoT appliance is. You can assume it’s not unless they can specify how they made it so without buzzwords.
SEO solved the problem it was meant to fix, i.e. “users arent looking at our site enough.” You’re fooling yourself if you think it was ever about making searches more useful for the user.
The very conceit of SEO defeats the purpose of a search. The idea is the search combs through sites, finds what the user wants, and returns it to them based on what it believes is the closest match to what the user wanted. It’s a process between two parties: the user and the search engine. The second the websites start trying to inject themselves into this process by adjusting their content to the search, it corrupts the process.
Picture yourself in a library looking through the card catalog. You’re searching for something, using a system to locate it. Imagine if the books you’re looking for spontaneously changed their titles or authorship just to “help you find them” while you’re flipping through cards. Imagine if you’re walking down the shelves and books are literally shifting around like fucking Hogwarts, trying to get in front of you.
That is the inherent issue with SEO. No one but the user knows what the user wants to see, the content trying to adjust itself to appear in the results more consistently isn’t about helping the user find what they want, it’s about making sure the user sees that specific content.
Because every website wants traffic. That’s all it is.
SEO solved the problem it was meant to fix, i.e. “users arent looking at our site enough.” You’re fooling yourself if you think it was ever about making searches more useful for the user.
You’re not wrong, but if searches quit being useful, people will quit using them.
That’s accurate and doesn’t contradict the person you replied to. What they are saying is that SEO was never about fixing a search engine user’s problem; it exists to solve web host’s problem of “we aren’t getting enough ad revenue.”
The same is going to happen with these LLMs once they rely more and more on searching the web: folks are going to find out how to poison the results in a way that pushes users toward their products/services/ads.
SEO should always have been called index poisoning, because that’s exactly what it is.
Every site wants traffic, and I’ve been guilty of gaming search results myself in the past, but also don’t forget the other big conflict here:
Google wants ad revenue.
As such, if you are small and do it honestly, you have very little chance of getting any actual traffic your way because Google sends everyone to the “big end of town” and search engines / internet marketing has become a pay to win platform.
Back links made sense when we were all linking to each other early on because it was how you found good content, but nobody is linking to anyone anymore - unless it’s for some return to the linker, such as making a high traffic blog post with affiliate links etc - and it’s time to come up with another method.
Right now most effective for me to get information / reviews is add “Reddit” to the search and you get a discussion of the pros and cons. I’ve been using chatgpt for a surprising amount of “I just need to know this general info” kind of stuff. Ie I used chatgpt to work out the temperature and time it would take to dehydrate lemons in the oven, and also how to clean said oven with what I had on hand. Both of these would have been much more time consuming to do the traditional way, and I would have been bombarded with ads and people’s life stories before they get to the “just use vinegar” part
First you get a ton of books whose name starts with “AAA” and a whole race-of-ever-more-As.
Eventually they figure out people are actually searching for other letters so you get the same in other letters: BBB…, RRR…, III… and so on.
Then people start jumping over that big fat bulk of titles which start with just the one letters repeated tons of times in the first cards of any letter, so they start misusing the most common and searched for words, for example a book about digital coins with a title that starts with the word “Cooking”.
And so on.
Doesn’t it sound strangelly familiar (maybe not the explicit techniques but the “slimy arms race” aspect)?!
I’m not (maybe an hour at most because I just started my job/training as software engineer), but long meetings are way more tiring than sitting there and coding. And coding while needing to listen to a meeting is even more exhausting.
If my time would be better spent coding than being in the meeting I just decline. It depends on the culture of the org though if that kind of approach is ok or not.
Coding is something you can do for longer stretches as you get better at it. I struggle with 3 or 4 hours straight out of college. Now I run 7 hours no problem.
The dichotomy is that the more proficient you are at coding, the more meetings you need to be in to give engineering input… So the less time you spend coding. As a staff SWE I’m rarely able to get more than 3 or 4 hours straight to sit and code. Rather it’s an hour here or there broken up my meetings.
I relish my no-meeting days to sit and actually get concepts out into code.
I’m spent at the end of 7 hours coding though. I’ve crunched to 14 before… But the code I wrote was shit for 5 of those hours.
My company started prioritizing developer time by heavily discouraging meetings with devs before noon, and one day a week is supposed to be meeting free. We also just don’t respond to pings before noon now unless it’s an absolute emergency. Took managers a bit to catch on, but my efficiency has honestly skyrocketed and I’m loving it.
Problem is when SLT decides they want a demo of progress and see all this “free time” called focus time on our calendars and stick a 30m meeting about 1 hr before lunch.
Mark it as busy in the calendar, that might keep them away. If marking the whole day is suspicious, make 1-2 hour marks with 10-20 minute gaps (or longer as long as it doesn’t allow sticking a meeting in). Then make these “appointments” weekly and set the subjects(focus time) to private.
Btw, meetings are work. If you spend a lot of time in meetings that does count as actual work.
This is so important. I know so many people that complain about people being “in meetings all day instead of working” or manager expectations are to be doing a bunch of stuff, but your calendar is absolutely packed with dumb meetings. Meetings are work, so if other work needs to be done then I need to be allowed to take that time.
And no, multitasking isn’t real. If I’m doing other stuff during the meeting then I’m not actually paying full attention to either the meeting or the other work.
I’m finding it better. Yeah, there’s less content and diversity, but the quality feels a lot better. I’m interested in a much larger share of the posts I see.
I specifically joined Lemmy to get away from Reddit. Why does everyone constantly want to talk about Reddit? There are much more interesting topics out there, folks
Yeah, I didn’t care for it while I was a reddit user. The guy literally doesn’t care if you post ‘fuck /u/spez’ randomly in a comment section. Why let the guy live rent free in your head when you can step away from his domain and influence and never bothered again?
Nah, it’s important to talk shit about people who suck that do corporatist shit like Spez. I don’t care about him but I’m just a sucker for anything like that.
Also illegal in the EU, when posting a “sale” the price compared to must be the lowest price the outlet had for the product in the previous 30 days. So unless they want to increase the price for over 30 days, this trick isn’t going to fly.
In the exact wording they speak of a “Trader”. It’s for both webshops and brick and mortar. And I think it applies to the entity and not the specific shop. So if a company has more than one shop, the lowest price on any of those shops would apply.
Now this is new law and hasn’t been fully tested, I’m sure shops will try things to evade this new regulation, but in the past the EU has not taken kindly to shit like that.
In Canada for Black Friday and boxing day they just have new SKUs (models made specifically for sale that day), but these are also usually cheaper than the normal ones. I think they’re actually made from the bottom tier of acceptable parts. So the quality is marginally lower on these models.
Some companies will make special versions for Black Friday that do indeed have cheaper parts or missing features, but for many it’s the exact same product as the normal SKU. They do the special SKU at the request of the retailer, to guarantee that no one can use a “price match guarantee” to make them sell more than the planned quantity of door busters.
They get around it by having a sale on a special version of the product that had a higher price in the past 30 to 90 days. The version is the same as normal, but with a different serial number.
Only that version goes on “sale” for Black Friday or whatever, so they are technically following the law. They do it in the US too. Literally look it up on Camel Camel Camel during a sale.
Many places are totally fine with only putting an item on “sale” less than every month. If you keep 1/4 of you items on sale, you’re covered, even if you only keep something on sale for a single week.
For this context with Amazon though, prime is totally different in the EU than the US.
There are few countries with Amazon (eg Germany) and thus for most the benefit is that prime only gets free shipping on smaller orders that wouldn’t qualify normally, and faster processing in the warehouse. Maybe you get your shit a day or two earlier.
In the US it’s next day vs a week.
Point being there are far fewer prime accounts in EU so Amazon likely doesn’t care if they can’t discount as “deeply” as in the US.
It’s the same story in US and Canada. Illegal, but not really enforced. And when it is enforced the the penalties aren’t strong enough to be a deterrent.
Think of the atmosphere as a layer cake. The bottom of the cake is very dense and the higher up you go, these layers get less and less dense. Up on a mountain, the air is very thin.
In other words, there are fewer air molecules per cubic foot (volume of air). The molecules are farther apart and can hold less heat energy. Because “heat” is what we say when we mean molecules are moving around. The more they move, and the more molecules there are, the more heat you have.
It’s also helpful to know that the air is heated by the ground and oceans. The heat from our sun mostly passes right through the atmosphere, not directly warming the air up very much. But the surface of the planet will warm up wherever the sun is shining on it. And in turn, the warm ground or the warm surface water then gradually warms the air from the bottom up. (This is because heat is transferred in different modes: radiant, convection, and conduction.)
And the warm air does indeed rise. As it rises, it gradually spreads out and cools off again. Some of the heat even radiates back out into space.
There are “fountains” of air constantly circulating throughout the atmosphere, and this creates weather patterns. It tends to snow on mountains because the warm air has carried some moisture with it on its way up. As it cools and thins, it can’t carry the moisture any more, and the moisture precipitates out. Which is why we call it precipitation whenever it snows, rains, sleets, etc.
So by the time air reaches a high mountaintop, it’s probably going to be cool or even frigid cold.
This is also why hotter regions, like the southern US, tend to get very humid in the summer. The warm air can carry a lot of moisture, and there is a lot of warm surface water. Our sweat is less efficient when the air is moist, because it takes longer to evaporate and carry the heat away with it.
Deserts have few water sources. So they also have hot dry air, and much less humidity, and therefore little to no precipitation. But they also get cold at night, because there’s very little humidity to hold the heat overnight.
All of this is to illustrate the complex interactions between the sun, the atmosphere, and water (or lack of it) on the surface, and humidity in the air.
Inside an older building you’re more likely to experience warmer air on higher floors than lower floors because the air is trapped in a nearly closed system and hot air rises. Of course, HVAC engineers try to compensate for this in modern buildings.
While I agree in general, one point is a bit to simplified in my opinion
In other words, there are fewer air molecules per cubic foot (volume of air). The molecules are farther apart and can hold less heat energy. Because “heat” is what we say when we mean molecules are moving around.
Less molecules mean less heat, it has nothing to do with the temperature, if you just decrease the density by removing half the molecules, you have the same temperature.
It cools down because it expands adiabatically. Consider a very thin balloon filled with air which is warmer than the surrounding. This now rises up, but as it does, the pressure decreases, causing the balloon to expand. During this expansion, the balloon transfers energy away from itself, because it has to push away air, to make room for expanding in the surrounding. This work cools the air inside the balloon. Assuming the air inside is dry, it would cool around 10 °C per km it rises. Now if you think about it, the balloon just stopped the inside from mixing with the outside. If you look at a large “piece” of air, it does not mix very fast, so you can remove the balloon and just consider what happens with warm air heated from the ground.
Now this does not mean, it has to be cooler when higher up. The same points hold, inside a house, but there it is often warmer when higher.
The best explaination is when looking where the heat comes from and goes too from the air. The atmosphere is mostly heated from the surface of earth, so the bottom and cooled from the upper layers. So naturally it gets hotter where it is heated. The question is now by how much? There are three modes of heat transfer in the atmosphere: radiation, conduction and convection. The first two are very slow. Connection is fast but has limits. Consider the piece of air, if it rises, it cools. So at some place it may be the same temperature as the surrounding air, so it stops rising. This means the convection works only when the air gets cooler by 10 °C/km going up (~6.5°C when the air is moist and precipation happens). So this temperature gradient is observable very often.
I think it is actually the other way around. You can consider the air inside the balloon to have internal energy from the heat. And additionally you have to make room for the balloon in the atmosphere, so you have removed the atmosphere from the volume the balloon takes, which also needs energy. If you consider both you arrive at the concept of enthalpy (H = U + pV), which is very useful for reactions in the atmosphere as pressure is constant. For this example it is not that useful as outside pressure changes when the balloon rises.
Another way to see it, the pressure has no “real” energy. In a ideal gas, the only energy comes from the kinetic or movement energy of the atoms. Each time a gas molecule is hits the balloon envelope it transfers some momentum. The cumulative effect of the constant collisions is the pressure of the gas. If the balloon is now expanding slowly, each collisions also tranfers some energy, in sum building the work the system has to do to the atmosphere. Leading to a decrease in internal, so “real” energy in the balloon. This corresponds to a decrease in temperature.
Each time a gas molecule is hits the balloon envelope it transfers some momentum.
I see! Thank you very much!
If we assume the balloon model and the sides expand then each collision of a molecule inside the balloon with the outer wall will leave it with less speed and therefore lower energy and therefore a lower temperature.
As a consequence, gas expanding in a vacuum does not cool off, because it has nothing to transfer the energy to!
Balloons are open. Most typically do not expand but the excess air just escapes out the bottom. Basically they will rise till the overall weight matches that if what they displace.
There are more efficient balloons that do expand and can attain same great heights. Far more than conventional aircraft even. But that expansion is mostly due to excess material in the construction and little from stretching. Thus the pressure difference is minimal while the volume increase significantly with altitude.
Was he tried and has he served his sentence? If so, it’s incumbent on society to put aside the personal feelings and help the criminal (yes that’s what I said) re-integrate into society. It’s either that, or fight for a different system.
So we shouldn’t try to reform people - just piss away a human life at a cost of $14K-$70K per year to the taxpayers in what’s already the most incercerated population in the world, where it’s well established that the threat of prison does nothing to reduce crime, and there would be no puntitve difference between a single rape and a spree?
Got any more of those great takes you’d like to share?
It’s even more dire, because where in the developed world can you incarcerate someone for 14k? I would estimate that depending on the kind of treatment these people get, you’re looking at costs of at least 50% GDP/capita, if not more.
US GDP/capita is around 70k USD, average costs per inmate per year are around 40k USD.
Germany GDP/capita is 46k EUR, average cost per inmate are at around 43k EUR.
So essentially we either kill them or house them inhumanely like livestock forever, OR we reintegrate them and use incarceration as a last resort, there is no other way. People who advocate for life in prison for anything but murder have no clue what they’re talking about.
Sources vary, of course - but this is the general consensus on the ballpark figure. I don’t think it’s wise to use Germany as a proxy for prison costs in the US - the US has too big a prison population and too sadistic an attitude toward them for this to be a reliable reference. That said, average costs appear comparable, and I’ve provided the approximate range.
Web Manager here. Some good answers here. Let me add a few more.
Engagement. If you land on a page and don’t engage on the page and leave, Google doesn’t even count you as a User. The more things you do on the page, Google will rank you higher.
Data analysts: we are testing if the article is valuable or not. If nobody is clicking continue, we know that we might need to rework the article.
Page load: The biggest and I mean biggest reason someone leaves a page is page load speed. If you’re deep in researching some information, regardless of your internet speed or if the fault is on the user side and your page load is over 3 seconds, you will leave the site. Loading only 1/4 of the page helps with this along with other tricks like caching at the CDN and lazy loading.
There are tons more reasons, but we found that with the “Continue” button, it wasn’t detrimental to the site performance.
Also, a lot of websites are built on CMS that has [Read More]… baked in. eg wordpress is designed around the concept of an excerpt of each page/post as it was built 30 years ago. Although as others have pointed out, the time/data savings are minimal - that mattered when wordpress was invented and is a vestigial part of the system.
I started my career in SEO and moved into web Manager because it was just too tiring keeping up with Google. I think my last update that I could remember was called “Panda”. This is when they named their updates.
My current SEO strategy is super simple. Have the content you’re writing for relate as much as possible to the user intent. Give the user what they are looking for FAST and then crosslink, cross sell after. You will have a good page.
They’re constantly tweaking it, partly to stay ahead of the blogspam farms who make thousands of low quality or total bullshit pages just trying to get clicks for ads.
Google offers an analytics package that a huge amount of sites embed. Many other companies like Facebook have software available as well. Mostly people have these to track performance of Google-published ads, but it gathers a LOT more data than that. You also don’t need to use their ad system to put it on your site.
Anyway, it runs JavaScript to gather information about everything that a visitor does on the site and sends it to Google. You can “opt out” by using a browser extension like NoScript. I assume ad blockers could work too.
For people developing or running a site, it really gives you a ton of useful information - where your visitors are from, what pages people viewed, how they got to your site (search terms, ads, referrers), how long they spend on your site, even a “heat map” that shows what parts of the page people hovered on with their mouse pointer. The tradeoff is that Google gets all of this information too.
As a person who knows nothing about web development, can you not load the pages in smaller chunks, so that the first screen or two worth of stuff loads fast and the rest could load while you are looking at it. That way, to the user, it appears to load quickly enough to keep them from leaving?
You can, but you would have to do it through scripting which would rely on whatever methodology you’re using not breaking with browser updates and standards changes, whether or not the user has scripting enabled to begin with, whether not their adblockers or other plugins mess it up, etc. And then you can wind up just deferring the issue. Let’s say the user intends to quickly skim through your page to see if it actually appears to contain what they’re looking for or whether it’s just SEO bullshit, so they scroll down right after the first chunk loads and hit the point where the next chunk should load, and unexpectedly find that it didn’t do so instantly (because it probably won’t) and it appears your content cut off mid-page. They’ll assume your site is just broken and you’ve never seen another user hit that back button so fast.
So the answer is “yes, but,” and may not be worth the trouble.
Clicking a “continue reading” button is not an ideal solution either, but at least the user will (should) realize that they’ve performed an action that will load more content, as opposed to having it happen behind their backs in a manner that they weren’t initially aware.
Yeah this shit annoys the hell out of me with certain websites where I’m trying to ctrl-f information. It hasn’t loaded the whole page until I scroll down, so my search ends up being worthless.
What you’re talking about is called lazy loading. It loads text first and CSS and then images after.
Most modern sites now do this along with needing to load it at all until you hit the continue button. That not only reduces your browser load, it also reduces server load as well.
There are many other reasons to have the continue button, but the positives outweigh the negative. It’s not considered a dark pattern and helps the content team improve on their content.
regardless of your internet speed or if the fault is on the user side and your page load is over 3 seconds, you will leave the site
As both a developer and an end user, this drives me batshit.
Seemingly no one has figured out that if users are bouncing due to page load times, maybe the problem is actually because your page that was supposed to be, say, a recipe for a bologna sandwich doesn’t need to first load an embedded autoplaying video, an external jQuery library, a cookie notice, three time delayed popovers, an embedded tweet, and a sidebar that dynamically loads 20 irrelevant articles, and a 2600x4800 100vw headline image that will scroll up at half speed before the user can even get any of the content into the viewport. Just a thought. I don’t care what your dog-eared copy of Engagement For Dummies says. It is actually wrong.
I have made the business I work for quite successful online by taking all of the alleged “best practices” things that clearly annoy the shit out of everyone, and then just not doing those things.
I hate with a passion how when looking up recipes, you gotta go through like 5 pages of why they like it, a fluffed up but useless how it’s made, all sorts of other shit, and only then do you get the actual fucking ingredient list and cooking temperatures and the actual cooking instructions.
Page load: The biggest and I mean biggest reason someone leaves a page is page load speed. If you’re deep in researching some information, regardless of your internet speed or if the fault is on the user side and your page load is over 3 seconds, you will leave the site. Loading only 1/4 of the page helps with this along with other tricks like caching at the CDN and lazy loading.
The thing that always bothers me about this is that I’ve been using the internet since 90s dial-up, and even 90s dial-up never had a “page load speed” problem when loading text-based articles. An extremely conservative estimate is that modern broadband speeds are 1000x what they were then so “page load speed” is entirely about the design of the website, and it seems that mostly the excuse is “we want to spy on people”. Am I wrong? Otherwise why not write an HTML page that would be just as compatible with Geocities as it would now?
You can still write plain html websites, and they would be super fast! But that’s not how we do things damnit! I need to implement feature x. Do I spend all day rolling my own lean version? Fuck no. I download a 5-ton JavaScript library that already has that feature, and I fuck off the rest of the day.
You are correct on one thing. The math does not add up at all.
The root cause is the current meta of software development. It’s bloat. Software is so ungodly bloated today because we’ve been taught since as long as I can remember that hardware is so fast nowadays that we don’t need to care about performance. Because of this mindset, many of the best practices that we were taught work directly against performance (OOP was a mistake. Fight me).
There might be overhead on the ad tracking bullshit… Sure. But, if developers cared about performance, that ad tracking can be fast, too ;]
How long should it really take to render a webpage? That should be near instant. If modern games can render a full 3D landscape over 100 times a second, surely a wall of text and some images can be done in under 1 second, right?
This is a problem in all software. For a simple example, I remember Microsoft word from 20 years ago being quite snappy on the desktops of the time. And by comparison, we are running supercomputers today. A cheap android phone would blow that desktop out of the water. Yet, somehow, word is a dog now…
As I mentioned, small mom and pop shops can’t afford to give you free content without ads. So they prioritize the ad so they can get paid for the impression.
Unfortunately the content is not free to create and maintain.
Some of my clients do not have the budget to give you free content without ads. Even a (usable)shared hosting server costs around 25 bucks a month. Add in dev time and design, small mom and pop sites can’t afford to be ad free.
I’m not sure you understand me. I assumed that the continue reading button would ask me to pay and since I am not going to pay I never continued reading.
It really is. Everyone splintering off to their own app is what got me back to it. Had Netflix, Hulu, max, Disney, prime and I think Apple plus or peacock for a while and I could never remember what service the shows I was watching were on. Opening up 4 streaming apps to find what I was watching the other day got tiresome. When it was mainly Netflix and Hulu I only pirated the few shows that were on like HBO that I wanted to see. Arr apps with plex is so nice in comparison.
I could never remember what service the shows I was watching were on. Opening up 4 streaming apps to find what I was watching the other day got tiresome.
I know what community this is, but using something like a Chromecast w/ Google TV lets you search across all your streaming services simultaneously.
In my experience, the only problem I’ve run into is the remote’s microphone feature is a bit flakey, but generally when it does work it’s right most of the time.
There are steps to piracy which cost time and effort. For most of the media I consume that time and effort cost is significantly less than the time, effort, and capital I would need to invest in a paid service. However, the time, effort, and capital I spend to play videogames has been less than piracy would cost for me for decades. Being able to effortlessly get those games running on a mobile steamdeck is orders of magnitude cheaper than what it would have cost me to set everything up myself even if I’m not paying for software and my costly version wouldn’t be nearly as smooth. This quote would be true enough even if a counter-example didn’t exist, but Steam and GOG are pretty clear demonstrations of the kind of service the average person is satisfied with even if they still have some real issues.
Am I the only one who has a distrust of pirating video games? Watching a movie is one thing but a video game is actual code running on your computer downloaded from an untrusted source.
None of them this time around. Christie is a moderate, but he will be out pretty soon. I’m surprised he’s hung on this long, although I’m happy that he has because he and Hutchinson are the only ones with the guts to tell the truth about Trump. Hutchinson hasn’t been polling high enough to be in the debates, but at least he’s on the sidelines saying Trump is trash.
Out of the declared candidates, my preference would probably be Christie or Haley as the nominee. I still wouldn’t vote for them, but they would be better than the others if the Republicans somehow win.
Overall, it’s a pretty piss poor field on both sides. If Biden was 15 years younger I would consider it a pretty solid ticket.
I hope Antony Blinken eventually runs. For me, he’s the brightest star in a pretty solid administration. Best Secretary of State in decades.
I realize you said this, but I still have to clarify what a dumpster fire that whole field is on that side.
I still wouldn’t vote for them, but they would be better than the others if the Republicans somehow win.
Christie is as petty as trump, he held up ambulances and shit to get back at someone. He also let his employees take the blame for him for that. He shut down a beach and decided it was a good idea to take himself and his family to his own private beach. The only reason he stands up to trump is because he wasn’t picked as trump’s vp. He’s a POS, imo.
Haley seems to still have ties to russia: abcnews.go.com/…/haley-us-forces-align-countries-… I knew she did, but she still does too. Plus, she’s a woman, there’s no way in hell she’ll get enough votes.
I don’t know anything about Blinken, I’ll look into it.
He may be as petty as Trump, but at least he has never planned a coup to overthrow the freaking government. A Republican willing to call out Trump for his bullshit is better than those that continue to lick his asshole imo. Sure it’s a low bar to meet and Christie has a whole other bag of problems, but sadly most don’t seem to get to that bar.
Christie is a piece of shit. Ask anyone alive in Jersey during his tenure. Fuck that guy, he should be in fucking prison. There are people literally serving time behind some shit he did.
No. I said I would not vote for her, although I view her as less problematic than Trump, Ramaswamy and DeSantis. It’s a terrible field. I mean, you’ve got a fascist, a racist and whatever the hell kind of nutcase Ramaswamy is. It’s hard to get on a stage with DeSantis and be the bigger asshole. Haley is none of those things so that’s a start. One of these people has to be the nominee.
best take. Dems don’t follow Biden religiously. He’s just better than the godawful alternatives that are on the otherside.
I will stay informed on the issues, but unless the GOP does a 180 on about most of their platform I’m kinda forced to vote Dem (Stop denying climate change, stop trying to de-humanize LGBTQ, stop the culture war shit, come up with a real gun control plan, those would be a start). Hooray 2 party system.
I just turn off the news now, all sources are meant to keep us angry in an “us vs them” situation and never really talk about the real issues, so instead of it just flare up my anxiety and anger I’m just going to keep my headphones on and play games. Someone ping me if suddenly the GOP decides to be pro-humanity again and I need to reconsider my vote.
I hate that I’ve been forced into this same position, I always thought I was open-minded and didn’t follow parties, but when the choice is a literal fascist trying to tear American democracy apart with the worst takes on every position and a generic semi-left-leaning politician trying to maintain the status quo… I guess I’ll just stick with generic status quo, that’s pretty much the only rational choice for a sane individual. Even just sitting out the election isn’t an ethical choice, that’s surrendering to fascism.
If he were to die after the ballots are set but before the election, it effectively becomes a vote for his running mate. Still getting my vote over the dollar-store fuhrer.
I feel like while bush was a much worse president then most people realize, with some of his policies and things like the patriot act still in effect and gumming up the works, trump did more damage in erroding the facade of democracy and empowering fanatics
Exactly: Bush pushed through evil policy that eroded rights and committed war crimes and such, but Trump attacked the very structure of the government.
It’s pretty clear from all the responses here that the view is massively different depending on if you’re from the US, or not.
I’m not from the US - and Bush massively and irrevocably messed up a lot of things for me. And I’m just in the EU, not directly getting bombed by US military.
With Trump the consequences were pretty much all inside of the US, any fallout we felt over here were still from the Bush era, or to some extent Obama. Given all the damage that was done by those two maybe the structure of your government over there is shit and should be attacked - my hope from over here was that the whole Trump situation would lead to finally stuff getting fixed. It won’t be pretty for you guys - but from the outside I’d rather have someone incompetent like Trump mess up your stuff until the pain is big enough to actually do something than someone halfway competent break things on a global scale again.
There’s no comparison. Bush has a much higher body count and was a more effective imperialistic mass-murderer. He certainly did his part to empower fanatics – the wAr oN tErROr got all those racist bloodthirsty chuds baying for blood. As for eroding the facade of democracy, I don’t know what you can call stealing the 2000 election and then ramming through unpopular wars other than proof that America has never been a democracy.
Bush did immense permanent damage – the millions dead by his policies and the aftershocks will never come back to life.
Trump just rode the wave.
People who think Trump was as bad or worse than Bush are just telling on themselves that they don’t think nonwhite people living outside the imperial core are fully human.
kbin.life
Top