Research requires a critical mind. Think of a person you know that has average intelligence, 50% of people are more stupid than that.
And I’m not saying that stupidity is solely an issue for the republican electorate, I’m just saying “do your own research” is an unrealistic expectation.
People need to be engaged with.
More like the oligarchy now have 99% of the power rather than 98%.
The issue is that we believe we have a free democracy when the only power we have is to put an X in a box every few years. The system isn’t broken, it’s working as it’s designed to.
It was you saying that they were turning the adverts off, now you’re saying they can’t. So to call my research “armchair” is quite ironic.
The article you shared said that it’s only creators not in the YPP that don’t receive revenue but you either didn’t read it or just decided to omit that information based upon your predetermined conclusion.
A quick Google says you’re wrong, I’m not an accountant for YouTube so I couldn’t prove otherwise. Presumably if there was zero benefit to creators, they would all turn the adverts off, rather than just some of them.
I’m aware that they only get a small percentage of the ad revenue but it’s like that in every business unfortunately. When I buy a loaf of bread at the supermarket, I know that only a tiny fraction of a percent the price will go in to the checkout worker’s or farmer’s, or the baker’s paycheck, but I’m not going to boycott supermarkets because of that.
A couple of ads isn’t the end of the world for most people. Whilst I understand that they are undersirable, I also want the creators I enjoy to be able to get paid.
Some of the creators I enjoy are quite niche and they put their time, effort and money in to making the content. I don’t think a couple of ads is too much to ask to help pay them back.
To be fair, some phones already have that but they have much lower spec cameras/lenses, so it’s currently a trade off.
If a flag ship phone were to find away to implement a flush top spec camera, it would still only be an incremental improvement rather than a great new technology or a substantial innovation.
Yh, I’m not for bailing out companies that are “too big to fail”, I see it as socialism for the rich and capitalism for the poor, but that’s a separate debate.
Tech stocks were a interesting case as they bloated far beyond their actual value during COVID, what happened in 2023 was probably somewhat of a renormalization and now they’re back to business as usual. There will always be peaks and valleys, but I’d be very surprised to see tech stocks fail in the long term.
I’m not going to argue that there has been no progress, just that it’s not on the same scale.
Look at the difference between phones from 2004 to 2014, then from 2014 to 2024 and surely you’d have to agree. We’re looking at huge leaps in tech and innovation Vs much smaller incremental improvements.
And I’d once again like to state that this is not a complaint, just a point of view showing that astonishing amounts of technological innovation are not necessarily required to keep companies in business.
On the contrary, I absolutely appreciate it. I was about 15 when mobile phones first became a thing that everyone owned, so I’ve lived through the entire progression from when they were something only a well to do businessman would have all the way through to today. The first iPhone was 2007, 17 years ago btw.
When mobile phones became popular, each new generation of phones saw HUGE improvements and innovation. However, the last ten years has pretty much just been slight improvements to screen/camera/memory/CPU. Form wise and functionally, they’re very similar to the phone of ten years ago.
I understand that some technophiles will always be able to justify why the new iPhone is worth £1600 and if that’s what they want to spend their money on then good for them, but I personally think that they are kidding themselves. Today you can get a brilliant phone for £300 or even less.
In more recent news;
BBC News - Samsung profits jump by more than 900% on chips https://www.bbc.com/news/business-68738046
I agree. Smartphones, for example, have hardly changed at all over the last ten years, but you don’t see Apple and Samsung going out of business.
I remember when running counter strike at 30fps on a 480p monitor meant you had a good computer.
Modern graphics are amazing, but they’re simply not required to have a good gaming experience.
I just view it as a “try before you buy”. I have loads of CDs and DVDs that I wouldn’t have bought if I hadn’t seen how good they were first.
If I try something and don’t like it then I shouldn’t have to pay for it.
It was an interesting comment that added to the discussion, unlike yours , , ,
Still waiting for this to return to the UK and I’m absolutely furious that it wasn’t so popular that it became a standard menu item.
Yes, some jokes are silly and that’s why they’re funny. Although jokes can be harmful, I don’t think that this one was.
Are jokes productive for discussion or discourse? Not necessarily, but I’m not so precious that I’m going to downvote someone for making one.
I mean what’s more likely here, a guy made a joke and a load of sensitive Lemmings downvoted them or a guy was literally comparing people that support Palestine with bigots?
I endorse the use of /s so that we can avoid this type of debate, but whenever you mention it you get a load of complaints.
The chin/jaw line of the young woman is the nose of the old woman, the ear is the eye, there is a horizontal line of the young woman’s neck that is the mouth of the old woman.
At first I only saw the young woman too.
If you define a “shit take” as a comment that is factually wrong and or harmful, that’s fine and I’ve already said that. If your idea of a “shit take” is “I don’t like / disagree with your opinion” then I hope you’re fine with Lemmy becoming an out of touch echo chamber and I’ve also already said that. Why am I having to repeat myself?
It doesn’t take much browsing here to see plenty of rational disagreements that have been downvoted for failing to conform with the groupthink.
That comment received 17 downvotes but the only person willing to reply deleted their comment.
The comment seems rather silly and I’d wager that the writer is making a satirical comment about the repetitive nature of Lemmy’s narrative rather than legitimately equating people that dislike Musk to the Ku Klux Klan. If anyone was willing to engage the writer rather than just burying the comment then it’s possible you may have seen that.
deleted by creator