![](/static/66c60d9f/assets/icons/icon-96x96.png)
![](https://lemmy.deadca.de/api/v3/image_proxy?url=https%3A%2F%2Ffry.gs%2Fpictrs%2Fimage%2Fc6832070-8625-4688-b9e5-5d519541e092.png)
Its a monthly subscription, and if they sell you a no-ad product you’d have strong grounds to ask for a refund for that month. Otherwise simply cancel the month you see ads.
Its a monthly subscription, and if they sell you a no-ad product you’d have strong grounds to ask for a refund for that month. Otherwise simply cancel the month you see ads.
I dunno. I think the animals should worry. The Anthropocene is going to mean millions of species of things cease to exist because we’re changing the global climate.
Sticking to the old model of “pay for cable TV and watch commercials” is never going to work, be it cable or streaming. I don’t think I’m in the minority here, either; I’ve heard this sentiment from plenty of others.
As much as wish I could agree with you, the previous ad-free streaming services now almost all offering an ad-supported tier disagrees with your conclusion. Price conscious consumers are choosing ad-supported subscriptions in large enough numbers for streaming services to offer them profitably. I’m okay with this. Not everyone has the money that I do, but I’ll almost always choose the ad-free version of a streaming channel instead of the ad-supported.
One of the few exceptions to that is Hulu. I don’t watch enough on Hulu to make it worth $18/month, and the ad-supported version can be had for $1/month-$2/month.
Cable companies have seen the writing one the wall with Cable TV for quite awhile. They had the perfect product to pivot to with broadband. Had they offered a great product with great customer service, they’d have had the market forever especially how much consumers felt burned by telecoms abusing their market dominance with with early broadband.
Instead, cable companies doubled down on the lock-in and bundle model with deceptive pricing and horrible customer service ceding ground to wireless providers and even the same telecoms that were hated before.
Our household cut the cord on cableTV/satellite about 14 years ago, but kept cable modem service since then. Now that the local telecom has laid fiber at 500Mb/s for $49/month we dropped any relationship with the cable company. Two months before the fiber came in, cable suddenly dropped the price of our 100Mb/s service and increased the speed to $300Mb/s. At $80/month it was still better for us to ditch the cable company and go with the telecom fiber connection.
I googled a cheap Intel NUC and saw power consumption numbers of 15w to 40w. Thats quite a bit of juice (and heat) for small applications.
GenX here. Kids enjoying doing kid things even if we don’t understand why they do that hurts no one? Keep it up, kids. You’re doing fine. No cap.
Might be helpful to have this hardware if you want to develop malware targeting systems in China.
I’ll agree that’s a good thing, but that depends on there being assets (likely in this case), but it also means workers may have to wait months or years before the bankruptcy proceedings are complete. That shouldn’t be a burden lower wage workers have to shoulder.
Thats a very good point.
I’m not sure that was much of an issue for DVD. Historically VHS had those huge licensing terms for new releases ($90 for VHS), but the same rules didn’t apply to DVD (new releases $20). This was one of the main reasons VHS rentals died so fast after DVDs came out.
Also at least at one time, I remember Redbox was simply buying DVDs at retail stores instead of buying from retail stores for their disc inventory. I see that Walmart is listed as a creditor. That makes me think perhaps Redbox still was.
Sad to see this for two reasons:
Physical discs and the rental model have always been a fallback against oppressive streaming licensing, and with so few video rental stores left it Redbox was the last one standing.
It sounds like they missed payroll for their workers. No worker deserves to have their finances thrown into chaos because an employer can’t manage their books.
This was a shockingly good result when compared to the cost of producing this with a set, film crew, actors, costume/makeup, and post production.
It doesn’t have to be perfect, it has to be good enough to get your attention between the latest streaming show you or your kid is watching. It will absolutely do that for a tiny tiny fraction of the cost businesses had to pay before.
Toy ‘R Us is alive and well in Canada too. There’s a Toy ‘R Us store 6 miles from Detroit in Windsor Ontario in Canada, as an example.
I can think of one valid use case for this unsolved by any other solution:
Lets say a company has an SoC board base product currently currently base on ARM. They want to eventually migrate to RISC-V based solution.
If a company has a product currently written to use ARM compiled code, but wants to transition to RISC-V (which isn’t ready yet), they could deploy this board which could run today’s ARM implementation, and it would be future-ready when the RISC-V implementation would be released without having to replace hardware.
Patron: Excuse me, what aisle could I find content on ‘god’s fury’?
Worker: That would be aisle 6.
Patron: oh, excuse me. I misspoke. What aisle could I find content on ‘furry gods’?
Worker: Oh, no worries! That would be aisle 8.
…only if you HAVE onedrive account it can reach.
This is a fantastic use case for NOT using a Microsoft account and instead a local account. No Microsoft authenticated account, no Onedrive.
Just because a Ford truck weighs a lot doesn’t mean we shouldn’t address EV tire wear.
I agree. However, this started with a highlighting of EV tire pollution. Arguably mainstream EVs entered production in 2012. F-150 and other trucks of equal or more weight have been on the road since about the late 1970s. Why is it this is an EV tire pollution discussion only?
Do a lot of people own trucks that shouldn’t because they don’t use them as trucks? Yes.
We agree.
I’d argue that’s a completely different argument.
How so? Are you arguing that a truck that weighs the same the produces equal tire pollution is okay, but an EV that weighs the same with equal tire pollution isn’t okay?
This isn’t an EV only issue, but it is highlighted for EVs because they go through tires faster than equivalent sized (not weight) vehicles.
Isn’t this following the same flawed logic that trucks shouldn’t have to get high MPG efficiency because they are trucks, while ICE cars are held to higher efficiency standards? Your logic seems to suggest we could solve this EV tire pollution problem by simply eliminating EV cars and only driving EV trucks because then they’d get a pass on tire pollution like current ICE trucks do.
In the end I would hope all vehicles would be equipped with tires that don’t kill aquatic life!
I agree, but your other statements prior seem to give a pass to ICE (or EV trucks).
A model 3 to an f150 is absolutely apples and oranges.
Seriously. We are talking about tire tread compared to weight.
Are we? I thought we were talking about tire particulate pollution. Why have I never heard the conversation raised that truck tire pollution is a problem? Why is it only EVs that its suddenly an issue?
Why not just compare the model 3 to an 18-wheeler then? Those weigh way more. Would have made his point better.
And it’s a completely meaningful comparison, as long as you throw away the fact that different vehicles are used for different things.
They’re designed for different things. While I’ll agree that the many F-150 drivers are using them for their appropriate grade of work or towing, I’m guessing there are more F-150s that are used as grocery-getting-pavement-princesses than all the Tesla Model 3s ever sold.
In that way, F-150 is identical to Tesla Model 3 as far as use case.
If you’re torrenting, then there’s no risk of watching ads from what you download, which was your primary argument for not subbing. If that’s the case then there’s no risk to subscribing to the service to pay for the content, and simply never log in.