• 0 Posts
  • 28 Comments
Joined 1 year ago
cake
Cake day: June 26th, 2023

help-circle
  • While I have to apologize for not being able to provide you with any help for the problem at hand I just wanted to note that if you open up identical public threads via a reddit account and via a lemmy account at the same time then those two accounts are then, for data analysis purposes, connected for all eternity. You might as well not bother using different nicknames.
    If that isn’t a concern to you then just ignore my ramblings.




  • Their leader calls journalists vermin and they go on about the ‘Lugenpresse’, his followers shoot up synagogues, allied media spread Nazi/far right inspired anti-semitic canards like Cultural Marxism (‘Kulturbolshewismus’), they go on about how the ‘’‘left wing intellectual elite’‘’ are trying to undermine western values and cause a decline of morals and degeneracy (‘Entartung’), they’re afraid of difference, they hold the weak in contempt, they abhor nuance so use a limited newspeak vocabulary to limit critical reasoning, they’re obsessed with plots, and on social media many of his followers spread the Q-anon conspiracy which is a reworking of the antisemtic blood libel canard.

    Walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, is a duck.

    I presume we’re no longer talking about the movie’s marketing department…?

    Here’s a Sartre quote that’s also increasingly relevant (again):

    “Never believe that anti-Semites are completely unaware of the absurdity of their replies. They know that their remarks are frivolous, open to challenge. But they are amusing themselves, for it is their adversary who is obliged to use words responsibly, since he believes in words. The anti-Semites have the right to play. They even like to play with discourse for, by giving ridiculous reasons, they discredit the seriousness of their interlocutors. They delight in acting in bad faith, since they seek not to persuade by sound argument but to intimidate and disconcert. If you press them too closely, they will abruptly fall silent, loftily indicating by some phrase that the time for argument is past.”

    What I’m reading here are things in the lines of “Good faith anti-Semitism doesn’t exist” or “anti-Semitism is intrinsically confrontational and quarrelsome”. I don’t quite think that’s a tenable position as it would be trivial to disprove. Am I misreading this? What is your take?
    Are you sure the line is concerned with anti-Semitism in general and not only with a very specific kind of anti-Semite (e.g. mid-century, mid-Europe, Bierkellerputsch-y types)?













  • I am not sure if it will work out like this though. The amount of ads they are forcing down peoples throat is isane. Eventually it will make people consume less videos and with that less ads overall.

    Sure, could be - but keep in mind that they have all the relevant usage data at hand. Any decrease in service popularity among users (or indeed any kind of user behavior) is immediately visible to them. They have the means to know exactly what annoyances the market will bear.

    And considering that YouTube still holds a de-facto monopoly on video discoverability within the entire anglophone internet I feel like it’s safe to say that the market will likely bear a lot more annoyances :P



  • I’m a bit baffled that this hasn’t popped up yet: Sell them on eBay.
    Mark them as broken goods/scrap and re-iterate that fact very clearly in the product description. Broken drives often sell for up to 1/3 of the value of a working one, no scamming needed.

    I cannot tell you why that is, but my theory is that a lot of folk buy up broken drives in private sales in the hopes that the “broken”-diagnosis is just user error and that the drive is actually fine. Knowing my users that might actually be true in many cases.

    Edit: I didn’t quite catch that you were not able to successfully overwrite your data. I guess that’s a point against selling it. Always encrypt your drives, that way you can always sell them when they break!


  • Unlimited* plans are always sold on the idea that a sizeable part of the user base aren’t going to use an actual unlimited amount of the resource.

    Unless there is a contract regarding a fee over a period of time, there isn’t that much that users can do to compel a service to offer a service they no longer want to offer.

    Absolutely! But I don’t think that’s the point of contention here. The problem is the “abuse” rhetoric, since it’s not just incorrect but disingenuous to basically claim that the users did anything wrong here. They’re imposing limits because they miscalculated how many heavy users they could handle.
    Again, that’s a completely reasonable move, but framing it as anything but a miscalculation on their part is just a dick move.