I was gonna say. It’s this exactly. Plus a nice feature of Fediverse stuff is that it can scale down to hobby levels if needed. Venture funded commercial services abhor this and will compromise all kinds of things (e.g. morals, ethics) to keep going at whatever scale they’re at.
This gives me hope. It’s like we’re all finally learning how to moderate forums in this ridiculous climate.
No idea. Maybe they’ll keep it like the Gadsden Flag holdout libertarians? “We were here first” and all that.
Honestly, I was thinking about the people out there with tattoos. There has to be at least one.
For me, the cherry on top is how the “InfoWars” name is still completely apt, for completely different reasons.
I think there’s always going to be that group of people. Another example: folks that didn’t notice that The Colbert Report was satire.
That also sounds like the kind of prank that Cards Against Humanity would pull if they had access to as much cash. I love this so much.
It is so incredibly refreshing to hear someone with (however limited) power say what I’ve been seeing with the naked eye.
A four-hour drive through rural America last week showed me this: trump signs in the very poorest and the very richest yards, for miles and miles. There was the occasional Harris sign for obviously middle-class dwellings but not all.
Yes, but only if fascist_warp_core shows up. I hate that guy.
The key phrase to remember here is: Price Discrimination.
Stores already possess the technology to track anyone’s shopping experience through loyalty cards. The “discounts” you get are really just a tax on everyone that doesn’t participate, and the benefits to the company for having your data are worth potentially losing business from un-tracked customers. That’s how valuable your data is.
So why aren’t we seeing per-customer targeting? This is not to suggest that businesses are benign here, but rather, just cautious about outright per-customer discounts and other price manipulation. Custom coupons are kinda/sorta a part of this. IMO, the door is still wide-open to find ways palatable to the customer (and courts) while dialing everyone in.
In that context, all cameras do is make the system practically impossible to dodge. Considering how much stores value that kind of information, it makes sense they’d invest to capture 100% of their retail activity.
I dunno. If you DGAF about long-term outcomes for anyone, including the job itself, and have zero moral fiber, it’s probably a pretty plush gig. That said, I’d be worried about that paycheck bouncing now and again.
I never played this game; is it really so good that fans were clamoring for a re-release? What am I missing if anything?
Also, I may be misremembering when this was launched but isn’t it a bit early for a re-master on this one?
Everything makes sense now. Elon works for mom.
I honestly can’t wrap my head around this. If I emigrated elsewhere to flee this shit-show, I would absolutely help other people cross whatever borders I did.
Oh no. It’s a whole genre?!
I’m inclined to agree. I think the best path through would be to focus on laws that benefit multiple minor players that have a seat at the table.
Antitrust laws in general are a good example. These function at the direct expense of big monopolies, but are exactly what companies need if they want in on what was monopolized. And in the case of breaking a monopoly down, the resulting “baby” companies given more power, growth opportunity, hiring opportunities (job growth) and money making potential than the parent. This can also spur economic growth for all the fat cats out there by creating many new investment and hiring potentials. Overall, if you can get past the monopoly itself (read: take the ball away from your billionaire of choice), everyone else involved stands to benefit.
There may be other strategies, but I can’t think of any right now. I think the key is to tip the scale in favor of more favorable outcomes, then repeat that a few more times, achieving incremental progress along the way. Doctorow outlines the ideal end state for all this, but it’s up to everyone else to figure out how to get there.
While I don’t like the idea of embracing capital to improve things, the whole system is currently run this way. Standing with other monied interests that are aligned with the same goal might be the only way to go.
Just yesterday, Mrs. Warp Core was trying to enroll with an online service. The self-service email confirmation link refused to function correctly in Firefox on a desktop operating system (Windows in this case). It worked flawlessly on Firefox+iOS. Said link also shuttled the user straight off to the phone app.
I’ll add that nearly ever other aspect of their public facing web, including the online chat support, worked flawlessly everywhere I tried it. This all just reeked of hostile design.
When asked about why this is, I simply said:
The browser provides good security and choice for the user. Apps provide good security and control for the vendor.
Oh, it’s petty cash to be sure. If you have $100-ish bucks to throw around, you probably aren’t going to miss much by not doing this. Unless, of course, letting someone else take even one dollar from you in this way is against your religion or something (i.e. the principle of the thing). Conversely, if you need the handful of dollars this makes, you probably don’t have that kind of walking-around money in the first place.
Jesus. This makes it reasonable to just buy $100 worth of your own game every month, just to make sure. Assuming that the number of real sales cover Valve’s percentage and then some. Yeah, that’s a non-zero opportunity cost for you, and additional float for Valve, however petty it may be. But for a small developer, maybe that makes sense.
Outside? Hard pass.
Welcome to the top of the sigmoid curve.
If you were wondering what 1999 felt like WRT to the internet, well, here we are. The Matrix was still fresh in everyone’s mind and a lot of online tech innovation kinda plateaued, followed by some “market adjustments.”