Of course Alaska is an extreme. That's why we would send people there. When they came back to "normal" places, they might bitch so much when it got dark at 9:30 instead of 10:30.
I am specifically advocating against the changing of the clock. I honestly couldn't care less if we were on permanent DST or sticking with the "correct" time for the time zone.
I read that about Florida the other day, not long after they came to the idiotic conclusion that teachers needed to start carrying guns. I also agree, all states should consider similar legislation.
The tricky part is that the "advertisements" could potentially be both: one part paid-for ad, and one part exactly the similar-source music you're looking for. Of course, it can also be one-part advertisement, and one-part canned, unrelated garbage, which is exactly what you're trying to avoid.
I agree with the sentiment that there are benefits to payola, but with the very nature of it being a double-edged sword, I tend to agree with you that it's not worth it. I'd prefer my musical branches grow organically.
I mean the "big guys" like this SpotLister group. "Big guys" playing the advertising game openly, and for a set price. The secret promoters, whether they're Sony shills or some hipster named Asher trying to get his girlfriend's Ani DiFranco cover band off the ground, they can never plug all the holes.
I do see the irony of excluding the Sony rep from "the big guys," now that you bring it up.
I truly had no idea this was still a thing, but modernized for a different delivery method. People truly will find any possible way to make a buck.
If it's in violation of the TOS, it should be easy for Spotify to knock out the big guys, at least in theory. Smaller or quieter operations though... Whack-a-mole? Needles in a haystack?
I feel like both critics and audience scores have their place, but neither are to be trusted. Critics fall into the trap of caring about the wrong things, erring on the side of being seen as edgy or bold with their statements, or just not giving a movie a fair shake because they watch too many of them. Audiences, on the other hand, tend to be lazy with their reviews, rate things too highly if it falls right in line with their political agenda (or two lowly if it's opposite) and are prone to falling for the visuals of a movie when content is what mattered (or vice versa.) Critics are often to jaded for their own good. Audiences are often too stupid for theirs.
I read reviews of movies like I read product reviews: see what the critics or audiences are saying they like and dislike about the movies, try to determine if those people are people you can identify with, or if they seem like giant douchebags, and extrapolate from there. Is the reviewer too stupid to use a vacuum cleaner properly? Probably not the vacuum cleaner's fault it was given that 1-star rating. Was the critic too caught up in looking for the depth in the latest Fast and Furious movie when they were busy panning it in their review? I still might see it, knowing it's supposed to be a mostly mindless action movie.
It's not at all irrelevant. The "many of you" that have disposable income are not "the rest of us" who are outraged at the price of going to see a movie. It's never just $15 either. Take a date? Take the kids? Want a drink? Want comfortable chairs? And then you're also at the mercy of being in a public place to enjoy that content. Have to use the restroom? No pause button. Irritating bunch of kids being loud a row or two back? Suck it up. Someone next to you spends the whole movie on their phone? Just ignore them. It's just not worth it anymore.
But aside from the flat cost of the movie, the point above still stands: If I'm going to spend between $20 and $50 for my spouse and I to spend two hours around rude people in a cramped seat watching a movie, you'd better believe I'm going to make sure it's worth my $20-$50. If I'm at home and have an extra bit of time to take in a new show on Netflix, the stakes are so much lower. Hell, I don't even feel too bad if I stop the movie part way through and never watch it again. I'm really only out a small amount of time and a fraction of the cost of my monthly subscription fee.
I see nothing wrong with requiring companies to reveal what your actual chances are of getting certain items before you burn your real dollars "gambling" on their loot boxes.
I also see nothing wrong with having a warning about these systems so parents can make informed decisions about whether or not to let their kids play these games.
I have a feeling most people will stop reading your post when you say things like "liberal media." If you'd like to be taken seriously, you should avoid things like "liberal media," "fake news," and other nonsense catchphrases associated with them.
Even as a mild audiophile, I do not believe any of this is "better" than what we currently have. I'm not some Luddite who hates progress, and I'm not so much an audio snob that Bluetooth ear buds just aren't "good" enough, but the current technology has been around for so long because it really is quite good.
You know what it reminds me of? The good ol' DE-15 "VGA" plug. Are there "better" alternatives out there? Of course there are. VGA sticks around because it works, TONS of devices support it, and it doesn't require anything fancy or expensive to setup. Non-fruit companies continue to support it because it's cheap to implement and it has hundreds of millions of devices across decades that support it.
I don't think this comes as a shock to most of us, and I don't think it's entirely due to the innovation of other companies. I do not count myself as an Apple fan (a detractor, actually) but I've been able to respect their dedication to "the Apple vision" or whatever you'd like to call it back in the era of Mr. Jobs. They've done a lot of legitimately "brave" things in the past, and have had some truly incredible (if derivative) designs that broke the market molds everywhere.
Now though? Their actual bravery is gone, replaced with a feigned insight into the future of tech. They're a rudderless ship. Still a MASSIVE, even potentially unstoppable ship, but that ship lacks a specific course. I don't doubt that they'll figure something out from atop their mountain of cash, but I'm entirely unsurprised that they're no longer the tech-world's darling.
This would be accurate if the gerrymandering that put these people into office weren't so disgustingly abundant. The representatives that are "elected by the people" are nowhere near an accurate representation of the will of the people.
If this were commentary on the risks associated with receiving potentially dangerous medications with fake prescriptions from fake doctors, I would be interested in the lively debate on the other side of it. Unfortunately, I can't imaging anything less worrying than the illicit use of non-prescription contact lenses.
Perhaps this was satire so deep that nobody but the author was in on the joke.
Like the number of licks it takes to get to the center of a Tootsie Pop, the world may never know.
Yeah, I see their "edge-to-edge" better now when I look at the renders/pictures. Not what I think of with that wording. I guess it's better than saying "we removed the home button."
My 3GS comment was more about the look of the phone, not the materials behind it:
I see what you're saying about the materials, where the back is glass and the metal wraps around the phone like the iPhone 4. I just happen to think the overly rounded, chrome-polished edges make it look like a giant 3GS.
What's old is new again, I guess. Wireless charging at a time when it's either standard or removed. "Windows Hello" at a time where Windows phones aren't really a thing anymore. "Edge-to-edge" screen when every other manufacturer realized how lame this gimmick was.
All wrapped in a very large, chrome-wrapped... iPhone 3GS case?
I am pretty sure this is neither magical, nor brave.
Slashdot Mirror
Infowars is not decried as fake news because of the "Spirit Cooking" article. It's decried as fake news because it's not even "news."
I am Jack's Broken Heart.
Of course Alaska is an extreme. That's why we would send people there. When they came back to "normal" places, they might bitch so much when it got dark at 9:30 instead of 10:30.
I am specifically advocating against the changing of the clock. I honestly couldn't care less if we were on permanent DST or sticking with the "correct" time for the time zone.
I read that about Florida the other day, not long after they came to the idiotic conclusion that teachers needed to start carrying guns. I also agree, all states should consider similar legislation.
Broken link after broken link, separated by the occasional article with facts in it. Did you have a point?
So the increases in health problems, car accidents, and financial loss are all worth it because you get to play outside until 11pm?
If we have any sense about it, we'll ship DST proponents to Alaska for a year so they can appreciate what "normal" feels like when they return.
The tricky part is that the "advertisements" could potentially be both: one part paid-for ad, and one part exactly the similar-source music you're looking for. Of course, it can also be one-part advertisement, and one-part canned, unrelated garbage, which is exactly what you're trying to avoid.
I agree with the sentiment that there are benefits to payola, but with the very nature of it being a double-edged sword, I tend to agree with you that it's not worth it. I'd prefer my musical branches grow organically.
I mean the "big guys" like this SpotLister group. "Big guys" playing the advertising game openly, and for a set price. The secret promoters, whether they're Sony shills or some hipster named Asher trying to get his girlfriend's Ani DiFranco cover band off the ground, they can never plug all the holes.
I do see the irony of excluding the Sony rep from "the big guys," now that you bring it up.
I truly had no idea this was still a thing, but modernized for a different delivery method. People truly will find any possible way to make a buck.
If it's in violation of the TOS, it should be easy for Spotify to knock out the big guys, at least in theory. Smaller or quieter operations though... Whack-a-mole? Needles in a haystack?
I wish I had the mod points today to upvote the shit out of this.
Bravo, sir.
I feel like both critics and audience scores have their place, but neither are to be trusted. Critics fall into the trap of caring about the wrong things, erring on the side of being seen as edgy or bold with their statements, or just not giving a movie a fair shake because they watch too many of them. Audiences, on the other hand, tend to be lazy with their reviews, rate things too highly if it falls right in line with their political agenda (or two lowly if it's opposite) and are prone to falling for the visuals of a movie when content is what mattered (or vice versa.) Critics are often to jaded for their own good. Audiences are often too stupid for theirs.
I read reviews of movies like I read product reviews: see what the critics or audiences are saying they like and dislike about the movies, try to determine if those people are people you can identify with, or if they seem like giant douchebags, and extrapolate from there. Is the reviewer too stupid to use a vacuum cleaner properly? Probably not the vacuum cleaner's fault it was given that 1-star rating. Was the critic too caught up in looking for the depth in the latest Fast and Furious movie when they were busy panning it in their review? I still might see it, knowing it's supposed to be a mostly mindless action movie.
It's not at all irrelevant. The "many of you" that have disposable income are not "the rest of us" who are outraged at the price of going to see a movie. It's never just $15 either. Take a date? Take the kids? Want a drink? Want comfortable chairs? And then you're also at the mercy of being in a public place to enjoy that content. Have to use the restroom? No pause button. Irritating bunch of kids being loud a row or two back? Suck it up. Someone next to you spends the whole movie on their phone? Just ignore them. It's just not worth it anymore.
But aside from the flat cost of the movie, the point above still stands: If I'm going to spend between $20 and $50 for my spouse and I to spend two hours around rude people in a cramped seat watching a movie, you'd better believe I'm going to make sure it's worth my $20-$50. If I'm at home and have an extra bit of time to take in a new show on Netflix, the stakes are so much lower. Hell, I don't even feel too bad if I stop the movie part way through and never watch it again. I'm really only out a small amount of time and a fraction of the cost of my monthly subscription fee.
I see nothing wrong with requiring companies to reveal what your actual chances are of getting certain items before you burn your real dollars "gambling" on their loot boxes.
I also see nothing wrong with having a warning about these systems so parents can make informed decisions about whether or not to let their kids play these games.
I have a feeling most people will stop reading your post when you say things like "liberal media." If you'd like to be taken seriously, you should avoid things like "liberal media," "fake news," and other nonsense catchphrases associated with them.
"but before we get to the better place..."
Even as a mild audiophile, I do not believe any of this is "better" than what we currently have. I'm not some Luddite who hates progress, and I'm not so much an audio snob that Bluetooth ear buds just aren't "good" enough, but the current technology has been around for so long because it really is quite good.
You know what it reminds me of? The good ol' DE-15 "VGA" plug. Are there "better" alternatives out there? Of course there are. VGA sticks around because it works, TONS of devices support it, and it doesn't require anything fancy or expensive to setup. Non-fruit companies continue to support it because it's cheap to implement and it has hundreds of millions of devices across decades that support it.
I don't think this comes as a shock to most of us, and I don't think it's entirely due to the innovation of other companies. I do not count myself as an Apple fan (a detractor, actually) but I've been able to respect their dedication to "the Apple vision" or whatever you'd like to call it back in the era of Mr. Jobs. They've done a lot of legitimately "brave" things in the past, and have had some truly incredible (if derivative) designs that broke the market molds everywhere.
Now though? Their actual bravery is gone, replaced with a feigned insight into the future of tech. They're a rudderless ship. Still a MASSIVE, even potentially unstoppable ship, but that ship lacks a specific course. I don't doubt that they'll figure something out from atop their mountain of cash, but I'm entirely unsurprised that they're no longer the tech-world's darling.
This would be accurate if the gerrymandering that put these people into office weren't so disgustingly abundant. The representatives that are "elected by the people" are nowhere near an accurate representation of the will of the people.
If this were commentary on the risks associated with receiving potentially dangerous medications with fake prescriptions from fake doctors, I would be interested in the lively debate on the other side of it. Unfortunately, I can't imaging anything less worrying than the illicit use of non-prescription contact lenses.
Perhaps this was satire so deep that nobody but the author was in on the joke.
Like the number of licks it takes to get to the center of a Tootsie Pop, the world may never know.
How is this even a discussion?
Not only was it nice to have a third choice of mobile OS, but it was easily the best performing and best-looking of the three, IMO.
There were problems almost everywhere else (hardware, app stability, app selection, etc etc.) but the really nailed the UI of the OS itself.
Yeah, I see their "edge-to-edge" better now when I look at the renders/pictures. Not what I think of with that wording. I guess it's better than saying "we removed the home button."
My 3GS comment was more about the look of the phone, not the materials behind it:
https://cnet2.cbsistatic.com/i...
https://upload.wikimedia.org/w....
I see what you're saying about the materials, where the back is glass and the metal wraps around the phone like the iPhone 4. I just happen to think the overly rounded, chrome-polished edges make it look like a giant 3GS.
What's old is new again, I guess. Wireless charging at a time when it's either standard or removed. "Windows Hello" at a time where Windows phones aren't really a thing anymore. "Edge-to-edge" screen when every other manufacturer realized how lame this gimmick was.
All wrapped in a very large, chrome-wrapped... iPhone 3GS case?
I am pretty sure this is neither magical, nor brave.
noun. 1. a word having the same or nearly the same meaning as another in the language
Pretty sure Shiva Ayyadurai invented Television.
"Where'd that door come from?"
- Shiva Ayyadurai's ass
Attain, obtain, ascertain, procure, gain, secure...
Synonyms are awesome. LPT. YW.