@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.
@ThatOneKirbyMain2568 they only work if people care about it, so double edged sword.
@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.
@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.
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.
@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.
@EnglishMobster every day on there’s a main character on the internet, and you never want to be it. @Deliverator, how about instead of this getting totally blown out of proportion, you ease up and unban the guy, as well as make it a personal policy not to ban people from every magazine you own over a petty grievance. Going nuclear like that should be reserved for something extreme like CSAM, not just doing something that irritates you.
@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?
@rafoix I’m confused about the defense of “they should have closed off the roads”. He drove around a barricade according to the story, so it sounds like it was shut off. Also just kind of weird to say “yes, I intentionally ran into those people, but the cops should a have done a better job of stopping me.” He didn’t negligently hit them, right? It was on purpose? You can try to share some blame when an accident happens and say <i>. But it doesn’t work when you’re actually trying to cause harm.</i>
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.
@CosmicSploogeDrizzle @AProfessional
Dolphin is open source, add a better updater.
I personally don’t know how to write a better updater. It would have been a huge win to get access to steam’s for free. This isn’t putting down Dolphin to want that.
@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.
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.
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?
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.
@wave_walnut the gameboy color infrared communication was basically the amiibo of the 90s. You could transmit a tiny amount of data and that’s it. In Pokémon for example, just trading pokemon was too much of infared. But you could give someone a mystery gift.
@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.