• 1 Post
  • 23 Comments
Joined 1 year ago
cake
Cake day: June 9th, 2023

help-circle

  • @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.



  • @jossbo

    @anemomylos

    from reading the comments, it sounds like the pixel pass bundle was just a convenient way to bundle, paying for the device as well as other Google services. It wasn’t an upgrade program. At the end of two years, you still would have to buy a new phone if you wanted to upgrade.

    from the description, it originally sounded to me like you paid a little extra every month to get a free upgrade every two years, and presumably you would have to trade in the old device. that’s apparently not the case. The stuff about being on the newest pixel device every two years was apparently telling you that after two years, you could buy a new bundle, linking your phone payment and other Google services. The benefit seems like it was very dubious to begin with- basically just a promise that you could buy a new pixel phone a google service bundle after you pay off the first one.

    from what I’m understanding about the announcement, people who have purchased a pixel pass, will continue paying the same price for their bundle until the phone is payed off, but once the phone is payed off the promise of being able to do it again is broken. They can still buy a new phone, but they can’t bundle the payment with Google services. So, at the very least, they did break their promise. But they probably can’t be sued for much of anything since there wasn’t a free upgrade being offered down the road, the promise was just, if you buy this today, you can buy it again later. No discount or special deal for buying it later, everyone who would have bought a pixel pass for the pixel 8 had it been offered would pay the same price, regardless of whether they purchased a pixel pass previously. so that promise has very little monetary value since pixel pass owners weren’t accruing any future benefit with respect to upgrading.



  • @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.



  • @Potatos_are_not_friends

    @delitomatoes @NABDad @danielbln @fartsparkles

    There are examples in the second link, but I can paste them here for you:

    Scrubs:
    J.D. started as fairly emotionally needy due to him wanting a father figure to replace his own dysfunctional family. Fast forward to season five where J.D. is an appletini (light on the tini)-swilling “sensey” (that’s “sensitive person”) who can’t hold on to his “man cards” (which would be taken away from him if he did something girly) for a full day. This is lampshaded by Zach Braff in the bloopers to Season 8.
    “You haven’t been here in a while, my character’s really gay now.”
    Carla was initially a tough cookie Team Mom. As the seasons went on, the writers Flanderised her obsession with gossip and her domineering tendencies over Turk. She also went from giving advice to forcing her opinions on everyone else and admitting that taking the moral high ground “is like crack for me”.
    Elliot went from being a pretty normal, slightly quirky, girl with no interest in kids and a high degree of efficiency coupled with no personal skills to highly neurotic, obsessed with getting married and having kids, and the most compassionate doctor in the hospital that was only there because she wanted to help people. The family part is at least somewhat justified by the fact that she as she got old she had a stronger desire to settle down.






  • @Nintendianajones64

    @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.


  • @slimerancher

    @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



  • @palordrolap

    @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?





  • @Gutotito

    @Snorf

    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.