Why would Samsung care if he burns out his OLED panel? The alert is there only as far as shielding the manufacturer from legal culpability if the unit fails. If they can point and say "Nah, no RMA, this guy only did 3 pixel refreshes in a year or installed unauthorized firmware" then you're on the hook for a new display. Assuming that Samsung has any more investment in enforcing you to pixel refresh is inane.
Do you also skip oil changes thinking "Fuck you, not today, Hyundai!"
Also weaker worker rights, gig-economy, continued outsourcing, H1B exploitation to undercut wages (aka 'take 60k for this 110k job or go home idk'), just straight up bad wage growth in general (min wage pretty much stagnant since the 90's), stock market rewarding RiFs, massively decreased market regulation, more take breaks for the ultra-wealthy, cutting SNAP benefits, bonuses transitioning to RSUs- taking 3-5 years you vest...
You will never lose weight through any kind of intense exercise alone. As the saying goes, "abs are made in the kitchen". Walking long distances can help burn a few extra, but any other workout is probably going to stimulate your appetite well beyond whatever calories are expended. This is especially true if you have a high food drive already (which you likely do if you tend to gain weight if you're not conscientious of your intake)
To be clear I'm not saying exercise is bad, but if weight loss is the goal figure out how CICO can work for you and adapt it into your workout regimen so you're not crushing 2 bags of Taco Bell after the gym. Also building muscle will naturally increase your resting caloric burn. All I'm saying is if you think you're gonna run 15km to offset that cinnamon bun, you're going to be much hungrier after the run than whatever satiation the treat provided.
*marathoners are the only exception to this rule since they'll burn more calories than you're ever likely going to be able to consume in a sitting.
It kind of falls apart when large companies can lobby and bribe the people in charge of writing and enacting laws to make exception and write around their problem areas. Or can just make strategic donations to ease any risks of enforcement. Or collude to make sure the fine for whatever infraction is well below the profit margin of doing said infraction.
I don't care to argue semantics, just pointing out your reply was as hollow as your criticism to the person saying legal doesn't mean safe. It's a pretty reasonable thing to draw attention to methinks...
From what I remember reading chewing tobacco is orders of magnitude less cancer causing than smoking. So much so, that some groups see it as harmful to lump it in with smoking or vaping. If you really need some nic, popping a zyn is probably the least harmful way to get it.
Yeah, I think if Windows 11 is going subscription based (plus all the copilot pushing garbage and even more baked in ads) that will be a strong incentive to switch to Linux or SteamOS. I barely even play games enough anymore to make a desktop worthwhile. Might just jump to Mac only.
A subscription-only OS would effectively kill Windows, but MS have made enough pretty weird decisions to cripple the product I wouldn't put it past them.
They also "can't" screengrab your credit card numbers or upload all your private data to their cloud for inspection, or steal your email password and download all your mail to a Microsoft server, or send fake emails about full OneDrive to trick you into subscribing.
"Can't" only applies when someone is willing to stop them, and nobody is. Microsoft can do pretty much anything they want and there's basically nothing you can do about it.
"Can't" means it would be bad for business. I think consumers are a lot less turned off by the idea of a OneDrive subscription than a Windows subscription. Better to stitch little services like OneDrive and Copilot into every part of the system and cajole people into paying for those instead.
I'm pretty sure "can't" in this context is legally binding. Windows licenses up to this point have been sold without expiration dates. If Microsoft suddenly started charging a subscription to keep using the same copy of Windows, evey law firm on the planet would jump on that in an instant.
What GP proposed is the much more likely avenue they would take: New version of Windows with a new licensing model. It would probably kill their consumer business overnight, but at least it wouldn't get their lawyers laughed out of a courtroom.
This is a bit like saying a hangnail and a gangrenous amputation are "not equally bad but they are both very bad". One is literally chopping things off to permanently alter them. The other is, at times, uncomfortable and frustrating.
The false equivalence of doing the "both bad!" song and dance serves to so radically under-emphasize the absolute wanton, orders-of-magnitude-worse levels of corruption and evisceration of norms of one side by reducing it to "more bad than the other but they're both very bad." It allows the window to shift to normalize the sort of destruction of systems we're seeing by hand waving away how "the other guys aren't great, either!" It's borderline discourse malpractice at this point, and should be called out as such.
The enlightened centrist take is not entirely wrong, though. The left definitely has some blind spots, among them their purist dedication to perfect morals and a willingness to tell anyone who does not perfectly agree to piss off.
While the right is comfortable holding their nose when white supremacists hang around because it gets them a bigger coalition, the left will excommunicate someone for saying out loud that they think trans women are not exactly equivalent to biological women. This shrinking of the coalition is how we ended up enduring another Trump presidency.
Not to mention the complete fiasco that was the 2024 presidential race. We should have thrown out the entirety of DNC leadership several levels deep for letting that happen.
There’s a bit of a duality about perfect agreement within the voters for the party’s candidates and somewhat within the party membership itself. Yeah, there’s a lot of telling each other to piss off. There’s a lot of jockeying for the platform and the primaries. But come the general, it’s a minority of the voters who will sit it out or vote for a minor party. Sometimes it’s a large enough minority to hand things to the Republicans, though.
A massive problem in the US is that the completely broken two-party system has essentially killed the political spectrum. People more-or-less vote against the party they dislike more, not for the party they want. To see any form of change you need someone like Trump to completely take over a party in one go and kill the old one from inside.
From an outside perspective the US does not have a political left. The policies proposed by the Democrats are roughly in line with the mainstream right-wing parties in the rest of the world. A mainstream left-wing party would look an awful lot like someone like Bernie Sanders - and we all know the Democrats would rather platform a wet paper towel and lose than see him gain any kind of power!
