The only thing that gives their opinions any weight is a lack of a formal western education? Do you have any idea how awful that sounds? Surely the point you are trying to make is more nuanced than that.
> I wouldn't be surprised at all if this is happening at the request of that government in the first place
You wouldn't be surprised if the incumbent candidate requested that Meta platform and systematically encourage voting for their rightwing opponent? What do you think happened here?
And as for me, I want people with morals to stick around and try to influence things in a positive direction. It's so easy to get on one's high horse and say "then go elsewhere", but everyone acting like that is a short path to a worse world. Tend the gardens you are in while you can, but I don't blame anyone who just can't carry that torch day-in, day-out.
Birdwatching is truly one of the cheapest possible hobbies you can have. Yes, you can make it expensive if you're committed to photographing them and traveling to remote locations to find "life list" birds, but that's not the vast majority of hobbyists.
Pretty much agree. Binoculars are essential though, unless you really just want to watch geese and herons and things. And for binoculars you do want to spend a few hundred dollars at least if you can. It really transforms things when you can start watching/identifying the small birds.
I just want a company to tell me truly what it is worth to them from me to not show me ads. Maybe the cost is truly so much higher than I expect that I wouldn't pay it, but for fuck's sake give me the option! Is it $15/month extra instead of $5? $30/month extra? Somewhere, that line exists where the company would financially benefit, I just wish they'd actually define it.
When I was getting married, I engaged a baker to make pies for our wedding. Two weeks before the wedding they cancelled, saying very apologetically they had not catered many weddings with only pies and couldn't do it at the price they quoted. I had to practically beg them to just give me a price that was profitable for them (20% higher, in the end), and then let me decide. This feels just like that.
I understand the rationale here, but I just don't believe I'm worth more to Disney (in this instance) as a recipient of these shitty ads than if they let me pay $2000/year to not have them; of course, that is more than I'm willing to pay.
I am receptive to the idea repeated across responses that Disney (or any other internet media company) cannot do this as a tier for all because it degrades the value of the advertising audience they sell to ad buyers by removing high earners. But it is still difficult for me to buy that there is truly no line at which it is worth it for them.
The problem is that such a line doesn’t exist, because they’re always looking for ways to increase profit for shareholders. On day X, they’ll be fine offering you an ad free sub, but on day X+Y there will be a meeting where they discuss what they can do to improve their revenue numbers and someone will suggest adding just a few ads to the ad-free tier.
This is why people go scorched earth with adblockers. There’s a lot of discussion about “good” ad networks being allowlisted, but they are all just one missed earnings report away from implementing dark patterns. None of them are trustworthy.
Sounds like you're waiting for somebody to tell you how much money they need. There's no answer, they need all the money. If somebody asked you how much money you needed to do something, and you had no competition and they would not or could not walk away, you wouldn't have an answer either. You'd take all the money.
This is just how not having antitrust, media ownership limitations, or consumer protections works. The actors, crew, and production companies are in the same boat as you when dealing with Disney.
> If somebody asked you how much money you needed to do something, and you had no competition and they would not or could not walk away, you wouldn't have an answer either. You'd take all the money.
I mean I wouldn't because I'm not a moral-free corporate entity whose only goal is to maximize my own gain. Further, the analogy doesn't apply because in the streaming and internet media context I can walk away and have walked away. I do not use any social media except this site and Letterboxd; I've moved largely to physical media and season buys of shows I like, I watch sports on the antenna, NBA TV, or illicit streaming sites with ad blockers running overtime (unless it's on NBA League Pass, which doesn't advertise to me!).
It seems like there's no limit on that because you're more valuable to them as a potential product for their ad reselling business that whatever price you may bring not to be a product. I'm sure luxury companies would be interested to show you ad if the subscription was 2000$/month
It's not easy to calculate how much you are worth because it depends on so many factors. And it wouldn't be nice to charge you 10x more than what they charge someone else.
This information is available in the annual reports of all these companies. It's the advertising revenue per user per year. For Meta it's like $100 a year for U.S. users.
Bioware hasn't been very successful - creatively or economically - in some time. I loved their heyday more than most, but they're far from what they once were.
I was at another EA studio when BioWare released Andromeda and Anthem. Got to play an early closed beta of Anthem, heard lots of details about Andromeda's development as it was happening. As a huge fan of their games it felt crazy and very sad.
However, The Veilguard to me was amazing. I loved that game and it's my favorite Dragon Age.
Yea, there are good ones out there. I had a horrible experience with unnecessary work done because I didn't know any better, drilled too deep, root canal, then installed a crown that cracked. Told me everything had to be filled.
Next dentist basically just said I need regular cleanings, or to learn to floss better. I've been going to him for 10 years now. Recommended lots of people to him.
Another signal is, how nice is their office? Is it a little converted bungalow with drop ceilings? Or a big modern monstrosity with floor ceiling windows.
I've also had experience bringing a friend to Mexico to get work done, which worked out well. Ended up saving a bunch of money, got the work done that day.
Im at a well known megaprofessional dentist,priced "a little above the average" if you want something unusual.
One day, we started to initiate "small project" for some teeth, involving some additonal costs for "beauty-stuff". The accounting appartment(!!!!) of them adviced me to get whatever-XY-insurance before the first step is done to save some costs.
On the first day in the morning when step 1 started, I talked to the doc about this advice - she said: "I do not know what they thought but this is a dentist, not an insurance reseller. I do not suggest to do this, you wont need it in your case."
Sure, there are bad apples in medicine just like there are in tech. But knowing many doctors personally, reading this fills me with equal parts frustration at your cynicism and sadness for what they endure.
What's the difference for a physician today vs. 30 years ago? Among other things, today's physicians struggle because they're being crushed: continuously squeezed by the financialization of their hospital/practice, carrying larger debt, more time spent fighting the insurance machine just to get basic treatments approved. On top of all of that, they are less respected in general and often face outright hostility from patients... all while being paid relatively less than their predecessors.
This can all be true yet people fighting for their lives often feel like they're getting ignored, dismissed, or treated like livestock by their doctors. It's hard to see your doctor as the victim when it's you or somebody you love bearing the cost of their shortcomings.
To your point, it's hard to imagine any human dealing with the conditions a lot of doctors face then showing up the way we want them to all day, every day. But how much suffering are patients supposed to absorb to subsidize the stress budget of their doctors?
I wouldn't go as far as drawing an analogy here, but it reminds me of debates surrounding police violence in high stress situations. Is there a higher standard when you're accountable for other peoples' lives? Are you off the hook or is it on you, and not the people you serve, to fight systemic and situational problems that make it hard for you to do your job well?
I'm not here to dismiss critiques, concerns, or fair observations. An inefficient, overfinancialized system is brutalizing all players. But to make such a comment about doctors "at large"? Everyone's experience is their own, but it's just perpetuating a state that I find wrong, (ironically?) unempathetic, and overall dismaying.
> Does the apple tv do acr? It has to, to do the first party "magic" it does.
I'm sorry, you're stating this like some obvious fact. Apple has previously said this is not the case and they do not do ACR. The Apple TV is the only Apple device I have, so you can set aside any reflexive critiques of my brand loyalty. What is your precise claim? Why am I a dullard for reading that Apple TV does not use ACR and believing it?
The entire reason I bought an Apple TV was to reduce the amount of data skimming happening in the background and ads being shoved in front of my face in the foreground, it's not like I'm lousy with options.
> Apple has previously said this is not the case and they do not do ACR.
The problem is that you need to trust Apple, and verifying what is going on is difficult. Apple controls the device entirely, and the user is captive because the hardware cannot be repurposed. The "hacker community" should simply reject these user-hostile devices that feel like jails.
reply