the answer is simple... either it's an employee for the marketing department who can turn anything into a positive or it's a fanboy. The page long responses that starts with textbook marketing BS ("No worries, the most important..") tells me it's from an employee because no one cares that much and actively wants people to lose data faster. The amount of buzzwords in his other response... ffs how can you guys seriously think that it's just a normal person who likes the service?! you should know better.
>If there was a problem with the vaccine we probably would have noticed something by the time a billion people got injected with it.
Not when everyone who tries to talk about their bad experiences gets treated like qanon and the morons who thought 5G caused covid-19.
Even quoting CDC or letters from a company who makes the vaccines is considered dangerous misinformation and can get you banned if what you are showing doesn't paint the vaccine in a good light.
I would venture a guess that some of that is due to the people sticking spoons to their faces, saying they were magnetized by the vaccine. Do we really need to give those people a platform?
While we are walking a fine line here, people have proven they will believe anything that is said in an authoritative enough voice, regardless of merit. At what point does the harm outweigh the good? We know social media allows these people to find each other and create echo chambers to reinforce their viewpoints and recruit others. We would have no problem if this was "white supremacy" or "terrorism", however I think this will affect many more people.
it's a very different situation. The money the artist stole never belonged to him, it wasn't his salary or a budget he was allowed to spend on the fabrication of the art. He had a specific contract and he was paid to take that 84k$ and lay it on a canvas to replicate a previous art piece he had done. The cash was supposed to be returned to the museum after.
every time your eyes look outside your monitor (even for a fraction of a second), they get a little rest. EG.:Looking a your coffee mug before you grab it, looking at the window, adjusting your keyboard, looking at your colleagues, your 2nd/3rd monitor that's a bit further, moving back and forth on your chair, etc. You never spend 100% of your time starring at the center of your monitor.
On a VR headset, your eyes will always focus at the exact same distance until you remove the headset.
I don't think the stocks liquidations at the beginning of the pandemic is a good example of this. shit was hitting the fan and cities were closing down before most of the "insider trading" happened. If the information they used to make their trades was on the front page of every newspaper, it's not insider trading.
I think the conflict of interest alone should be enough to ban them and their close relatives from trading individual stocks
this type of solution sounds good until you get hit by a false positive in a game.
happened to me on pugb and the only way I could get my account back was with a paypal charge back. It's very typical that game companies refuse to tell users what triggered it or how to avoid it in the future. For all I know, it could have been a scam from the devs.
I can live with a 40 - 60$ loss on a game, but losing the ability to play all games on protected servers forever would be really bad
Yup it's a valid point, that's why I made sure to call out in my original comment. So many little details that would need to be done right in order to make it work.
It's an impossible task for every game studio to get all those details right, that's why I think it needs to be centralized. That way game studios can just worry about making cool games, and not having to waste resources on this endless arms race of cheating.
>Win 9... well, #8 was so bad they had to skip a number
If you know what to install to replace the stupid touchscreen interface with a proper start menu (eg. Stardock Start8) and disable metro ui feature, it's a great OS. You get 3/4 of the modern features of Windows 10 without the downsides (eg. telemetry, no control on updates, keyboard layout management, taskbar freezing, etc.) and an interface that's halfway between 7 and 10.
If you don't replace the start menu, I agree it's a dumpster fire and I would never use it.
I'll agree that, especially with 8.1 and some tweeks, things were much better. But I think the out-of-the-box experience-- what most consumers will be stuck with-- is a better comparison. Because you can change just about anything if you're willing to use 3rd party tools or dig into buried settings, and especially if you're willing to dig around the registry.
>Teams is another one I don't even want to get started on.
At least this one is actively used by most companies (at least outside of IT/devs firms) and they generally find it acceptable.
OneDrive on the other hand... Even when I was an IT consultant, I haven't met a single person who has tried it and didn't absolutely hate it. I have seen employees playing out of pocket for dropbox or gDrive even when OneDrive came for free with the MS Office subscriptions provided by their employer because of how frustrating it was to use and work mysteriously disappeared or got corrupted on a regular basis.
> >Teams is another one I don't even want to get started on.
> At least this one is actively used by most companies (at least outside of IT/devs firms) and they generally find it acceptable.
Yes they find it acceptable in the way a slave prostitute finds the client acceptable. I have to use Teams because it is company policy. On my computer such a parody of a program has no place. Using it is an exercise in masochism.
The part that you are missing is that all of alternatives to YouTube pay creators little or no ad money and have far worse search engine/discoverability. If a creator is getting demonetized on youtube, moving to a platform with no monetization would not solve their problem.
And sooner or later, any platform that becomes popular would have to implement a content ID system and and have to deal with ban/demonetization waves every time Twitter/journalists discover a new type of offensive content on the platform.
There have been plenty of (mostly short-lived) competitors that paid out more per view than YouTube. But that's obviously meaningless if there are barely any viewers on the platform.
I agree that content ID is a necessary system in principle. Not legally necessary, but it's a system that solves real problems YouTube had before its existence. The problems with it are largely around YouTube heavily favoring recent content, while simultaneously having a support that takes weeks to even look at your case if you can't raise a twitter storm. They are trying to completely automate a problem that's full of subtlety and rife with abuse, and then don't give you any way to resolve it when it goes wrong. Other platforms don't have to choose the same path
> The whole point of "fact checkers" is to be used by people who are not expert on the subject
A fact checker is a (usually tertiary, like an encyclopedia, providing references to primary and secondary sources) source that is distinguished by focussing on current, controversial claims. There is nothing more a "fact checker" can be. That's not a failing, that's an inherent limitation given the nature of facts.
