Hard to tell without specifics, but my guess is that a 2% churn rate is about normal. You have to focus on acquisition to make up for the 2% loss. And yes, that takes a lot of ongoing effort.
Can't speak for Samsung phones, but in our household we have several Xiaomi, Motorola and Apple devices and Gmail (or any other email for that matter) notifications are always instantaneous.
2005 Mitsubishi Grandis. Super reliable, it can haul my family and tow the caravan and since it's a little older I don't have to worry too much about a ding or a scratch. It's nearing 200,000 miles now so it's still fairly low mileage for a large japanese car.
I'm missing a reference to the hardcore 'gabber' techno which was a hugely popular subculture in The Netherlands in the 1990s...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gabber
To me, it's a combination of the story, the storytelling, voice acting and music. The graphics can help with the immersiveness of a game, but they're only secondary. The games I used to play as a kid like Monkey Island, Sam&Max and Full Throttle still hold up today, despite their dated graphics.
I bought an Xbox last year and a copy of Red Dead Redemption 2. It instantly brought me back, the same feelings and attachment to the main characters. I broke up a little when Arthur died.
I can appreciate the modern, realistic graphics but without the rest... it's just a technical fad. While the other way around you can still make a great, immersive gaming experience without realistic graphics.
It also puts off and foreign investors, makes it hard for local businesses to import stuff they need. And leads to corruption if you can only change local to foreign if you get a permit from the ministry run by the presidents nephew etc.
Without picking any sides here, I think it is somewhat funny that both parties in the comments think the other party is indoctrinated by state propaganda about their own country...
It is pretty funny. However it gets a bit skewed when you talk about Russian media vs "western media". One is largely state controlled with very rigid guidelines and directives and the other is an amalgamation of hundreds of outlets in dozens of countries, with differing viewpoints and generally good independence. Some might be louder than others, absolutely, but they can all be heard.
I'm sure there is still some bias being applied, but the whole "russophobe" narrative is a bit tiresome and seems to be engineered by the Russian state to a large extent.
I'm sure that Russian state owned media is way more biased than most Western media. However, if you factor in that for instance a large part of the US only watches Fox, OAN or Breitbart, I don't think one party is much better off in the news department. A lot of people have access to independent media, but actively choose not to use them.
I'm not sure those conservative outlets are necessarily part of an aligned state agenda. Especially considering how they are directly opposed to the current administration.
Also I'm not sure how you arrive at the conclusion that both parties are equal, while also claiming that "Russian state owned media is way more biased than most Western media". My point is that there are no major alternative platforms in Russia. There's a reason why the few critical Russian news outlets locate outside of Russia.
I was always courious about this "state control". Seriously, I've heard this hundrends of times. And EVERY single person failed to explain how he thinks that happens.
At the same time reading all this banned criticism almost always left the impression of very poor analysis of the situation, usually non constructive and biased. The "state controlled" part of media also feels biased but more often than not it looks like a better job done when it comes to the situation analysis.
You can look at the NTV takeover for a good example of how this can happen. In cases where the state doesn't end up directly owning the media company, suspiciously often the majority of shares ends up owned by Kremlin loyalist oligarchs. On top of this there is a widespread general culture of self censorship, where there is fear of covering certain topics because of possible government interference. This was even confirmed in an official Russian report in 2004. I'm not saying this is without exception, but it would seem that the government has very large influence over media in Russia compared to many other places.
Yes, I know about it. BTW, as a result of this takeover "Эхо Москвы" which critisize Kremlin quite hard now belongs to the state owned company Gazprom. So, this is a way more tricky than you might think.
I mostly believe in self censorship - do not touch "dangerous" subjects etc. This is a main force behind censorship rather than directives from some dedicated goverment department.
This reminds me of two brothers who did a road trip through Britain to visit all the towns with naughty names and street names. I can't find a reputable link but here's one from the Mirror: https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/rude-map-britain-revea...
Back in the day, there was a pornographer who arranged to have his material mailed from these towns. That proved to be his undoing. He claimed that his material was of scientific/medical value, but the fact that he chose these towns for his postmark was considered evidence that his primary purpose was pornographic.
