I bought a year of pro and returned it 24 hours later at a loss (I had signed up using a non refundable promo code)
The app straight up doesn’t work: playlists don’t actually load the next song when you expect, it takes way too long to load a sheet, and then you have to navigate to “chords” on each song in the playlist, which introduces MORE loading. They could save so much time by not loading shit I straight up don’t need. Oh, and you can’t manually sync songs for offline use, that’s the cherry on top, you are at the whim of their syncing schedule after you favorite a song.
I can understand how it comes off that I consider rewarded ad formats bad, but that's actually not the case. I have the view that advertisers should know when their ad shows in that context. Those ad formats work for a lot of different kinds of advertisers, particularly mobile game developers.
What's most troubling here is that NONE of the advertisers knew this is how their ads were loading.
There are standards on how to disclose this kind of ad placement in an auction, but they weren't followed at all. Advertisers thought they were showing their ads to organic visitors of a website with high contextual relevance to their product / company values.
Videos that must be watched for Wi-Fi in airports can be properly attributed to boingboing/ unitedwifi.com/ etc…
Advertisers see these as organic mobile web page visits, when really they are incentivized /rewarded inapp impressions. There are different sets of expectations in such an environment. For one, impressions should probably be priced lower since the user has no engagement with the content. A lot of advertisers use contextual signals from the page text when deciding who to show ads to, and this disrupts the assumption that a user sought out the page they are on for some reason
> For one, impressions should probably be priced lower since the user has no engagement with the content.
And because displaying a web page in a temporary in-app browser will likely prevent the user from viewing or interacting with the ads as intended. (For example, if a user taps on one of the ads, where does that open?)
As the article points out, access is a huge issue. Also a culture that criminalizes rather than treats. Guess we can thank Reagan for that omnibus budget reconciliation that gutted the MHSA
>”Guess we can thank Reagan for that omnibus budget reconciliation that gutted the MHSA”
I keep hearing this, but if this move was such an obviously bad thing why hasn’t it been undone yet?
I know the local chapter of the ACLU screams bloody murder whenever the city tries to institutionalize some of the local homeless population. Even if there was substantial bipartisan support for undoing what Regan changed in the 80’s, it seems like a plethora of other challenges stops it.
In which case, it seems unproductive to keep blaming Reagan.
Perceptions are not exactly glowing in 2022. Currently, the popular public face of involuntary custodianship is Britney Spears, and even I'll acknowledge that the justice system's relationship to mental health seems catastrophically broken. I would honestly rather be sent to prison than an institution in most situations, for a shorter term sentence situation.
The fact that anyone who has sought mental health treatment can be at a disadvantage in civil or criminal cases as a result is abhorrent. There should be much more stringent limits on the availability of this kind of information in the discovery process.
Sure mental health treatment and agencies are notoriously underfunded, understaffed, and underpaid. But
Mostly we have a society that views those with mental health struggles as 'less than' and not fully adults, because they can't support themselves in some fashion and contribute to the GDP (from a very 10,000 foot view).
We can pay for support all we want, until society at large stops viewing these people as burdens, it's not going to really fix anything.
Ignoring that many folks in this place are not only burdens, but severely incapable of handling themselves in a way normally required for adults doesn't help the situation either.
It's a sliding scale, and one that people can show up on at different points on every single day. Ignoring that a specific individual can and or is spending all or most of it in a place that would have them dead in a week without external help, or injuring innocent bystanders, just makes the problem worse.
With medication and lack of compliance, some very bad cases could get from perfectly functional to that state in a day or less.
To to be fair, a big part of the solution is recognizing these people as burdens, and deciding who will carry that burden and how. The idea that some of these people will ever be self sufficient is equally a challenge.
> ... We present background information and an interview with the President of the Cuban Society of Psychology to learn about current mental healthcare in today's Cuba. Mental and medical healthcare are free and fully integrated. Early diagnosis and intervention is standard as each patient is known by their community doctor/nurse team from infancy through old age and by yearly home visits.
There are more, it seems they do a pretty good job of supporting community-based approaches given low funding. It'd be interesting to see some harder numbers on outcomes. Not surprising that supporting small, integrated communities has positive effects on mental health though.
Just as a point, your argument is a false dichotomy. The only two choices you allow are a ruthless capitalistic society or a communist society. The poster could have allowed for any colorful regions of societies in between.
I would argue most societies throughout history have treated people with mental illness less than kindly. But if wish to treat them better we must stop thinking of people as factors of productivity, and therefore their worth is only as useful as the amount they add to the bottomline. (Though I'd presume, albeit with little evidence currently, that society would be benefited in probably cost and happiness if we were to take on the task of providing adequate mental care to all.)
I don't think it's meant as a dichotomy. It's just important to note that "thinking of people as factors of productivity" is a common problem that happens in all sorts of economic systems.
It is also supported by immense oil wealth, and managed by a culturally homogenous (relatively) society for it's own benefit.
So being spent way better than, say, some random central African republic's mineral wealth, but not a model which is easy to duplicate much of anywhere else.
Yes yes, let's argue which is more abstractly authoritarian - "capitalism" xor "communism" - rather than focusing on the substance of the point OP was making. Or better yet, just get back to work.
Mostly, I am pretty tired of the "I got a really small serving of fries today; capitalism has failed." commentary. I see it everywhere: something negative happens, someone has to tie it into capitalism. Now, I am well aware of the fallacy of the excluded middle, but let's not kid ourselves that the "capitalism has failed" crew are anything but collectivists kvetching. I bring it up because a younger generation has little to no idea of various atrocities and grinding misery that also happened under various collectivist -isms, somewhere between ignorance and willful blindness.
Maybe capitalism isn't great, but dang, some of the replacements turned out to be a lot worse. It'd be nice if that context were provided instead of just another jibe at capitalism, which is one field of attempted solutions to the vast and intricate problem of resource management.
Is it not appropriate to say "capitalism has failed" when the central bank continually inflates the money supply so the finance industry can centrally plan the economy? Is it not appropriate to say "capitalism has failed" when most industries are dominated by two large market makers that move in lock step? Is it not appropriate to say "capitalism has failed" when the supply of essential goods necessary to have a distributed economy, like home ownership, has been priced out of reach of most people? Is it not appropriate to say "capitalism has failed" when it's easier to get investment money for outlandish throwaway subscription bets rather than long term development? Or topically, is it not appropriate to say "capitalism has failed" when it has paperclip-maximized its way to ignoring our human concerns?
Communism deviated from its ideal model, precessed, and collapsed. Capitalism can, and is, failing similarly. If you're truly interested in preserving capitalism, then it behooves you to take criticism of it to heart, and examine how it is falling apart. Your failure to accept criticism as "anything but collectivists kvetching" will only further its demise.
That sounds suspiciously like the "true communism has never been tried!" bit I have heard so often.
I don't particularly care about capitalism, myself, but the endless shallow attempts to tie whatever woe is being discussed to it is terribly reminiscent of how I used to hear about problems being the inevitable result of our nation turning away from Christ or whatever.
> That sounds suspiciously like the "true communism has never been tried!" bit I have heard so often.
Then you need to read my comment more deeply. Yes, it's adjacent to that no-true-Scotsman. The difference is I'm pointing out the inevitably of such, cf Goodhart's law. Just like implementing communism inevitably results in a concrete model that differs from the ideal, which will then be optimized for, the same thing is happening to capitalism. The objective difference is that it has taken capitalism longer to precess, but that's not particularly exceptional given the lasting power of say monarchy.
> I don't particularly care about capitalism
By your comments, you effectively do. You can't make an argument and then feign nihilism.
> the endless shallow attempts to tie whatever woe is being discussed to it is terribly reminiscent of how I used to hear about problems being the inevitable result of our nation turning away from Christ or whatever
Sure, there is always much groupthink and false attribution. Still, specific arguments need to be judged on their own merits. Reflexively opposing the prevailing groupthink is just another type of following.
Imagine someone keeps making this odd squawking noise in some language you do not understand, every time there is a discussion where something remotely negative is discussed. You don't have to really care about what that noise means, or its opposite, to not want to hear it anymore. That's all. "Capitalism has failed" is that squawk, because who knows what will be put in its place but just the sheer amount of hearing it all the time is irritating. That's what I mean by mentioning how shallow it is as a critique, it's just this sound people keep making.
> Imagine someone keeps making this odd squawking noise in some language you do not understand, every time there is a discussion where something remotely negative is discussed. You don't have to really care about what that noise means, or its opposite, to not want to hear it anymore. That's all. "Capitalism has failed" is that squawk, because who knows what will be put in its place but just the sheer amount of hearing it all the time is irritating. That's what I mean by mentioning how shallow it is as a critique, it's just this sound people keep making.
Try as I might, I cannot come up with a consistent good faith reading of your comments.
You're tired of hearing about something, yet not so tired that you won't create arguments about it by pulling in more distant topics? And when I try to connect with what seems to be your larger concern, you'll say you're just bored of the whole topic? All while ostensibly wanting to hear discussion of a related issue by reading this thread?
The best I can come up with is some kind of coping mechanism. If you're bored of the discussion, just stop responding. But perhaps next time, don't throw out the false dichotomy red herring.
You've made this way more complicated than it needs to be: "I'm tired of hearing about something ... STOP MAKING THAT NOISE!"
Try to imagine someone on Hacker News who followed your every comment. Should you complain about something, they mention that this is the result of a world which has turned away from Christ, or has not embraced TimeCube, whatever. Just over and over again. You'd get sick of it, right? That's how I feel about the squawk of "capitalism has failed us." It's not much more complicated than "Your probable alternate wasn't that great, either."
It appears "way more complicated than it needs to be", because I'm a second person with my own perspective, and I don't agree that your being bored of the argument constitutes a logical rebuttal. As I said, if you're bored of the topic, you didn't and don't need to engage with it. Starting an argument and then supporting it with your own disinterest is a very odd tack.
Furthermore you keep referencing this "probable alternative" bogeyman while completely ignoring that my criticism is coming from a place of reform rather than wholesale replacement. It's likely everything sounds like "squawking" to you because you're not listening to the specifics of what anyone says. It's very odd that you want to engage with the topic just enough to reject it. It takes all types, I guess.
You're equating hearing similar criticisms from many different people, in the form of message board comments, to a single individual following you around and sonically assaulting you? Respectfully, you may want to see a psychologist.
"Maybe capitalism isn't great, but dang, some of the replacements turned out to be a lot worse."
Well in terms of history we have not had a very long time for this experiment to play out. It is very possible that the construction of a system which allows both the generation of several billions of dollars also causes far greater harm than some of the other systems which were too heavy on the gas so to speak.
If history is a guide, all forms of a system fall due to avarice, vanity, or an external system which is operating 'better' at the current time.
The app straight up doesn’t work: playlists don’t actually load the next song when you expect, it takes way too long to load a sheet, and then you have to navigate to “chords” on each song in the playlist, which introduces MORE loading. They could save so much time by not loading shit I straight up don’t need. Oh, and you can’t manually sync songs for offline use, that’s the cherry on top, you are at the whim of their syncing schedule after you favorite a song.