Because if it is the hardware you want to keep and not the software, there are good android based options. And if what you want is control over the software, there are also good android options. I’d recommend a Pixel phone, and you’ll always have the option to de-goggle it completely with either CalyxOs, GrapheneOs or similar ones.
I was more poking fun at how ios users who let an ultra mega corp holds all their data and actively cripples privacy efforts while touting a false sense of privacy as marketing, never ask to de-apple their iPhones
Good for the mod team. If Reddit is going to take away the only functional tools that make the volunteer work possible, Reddit can pay for moderators to come in and do it.
Yeah, it sounds like a problem with a contributor to Shutterstock not following the terms of use. The person who put together the marketing materials for Loki was just using stock images. I don’t think it should be on them to enforce shutterstock’s TOU.
I wish I was born in europe rn lol. tbh with india’s population the gov could try something similar and apple would likely comply to not lose a huge amount of potential consooomers. Android has always been the dominating mobile os here but apple is slowly gaining numbers and they wouldn’t like to see the graph go down.
Safety on the road has been improved so far by having public orgs and governments pressuring companies with regulations. Without them there would be no seatbelts and dashboards might still be dotted with stylish pointy metal spikes.
Unfortunately safety regulations have solely focused on the occupants of the concerned vehicle. It follows that any feature that protects the occupant at the expense of everyone else is still measured as a net positive. Ultimately this is leading to an arms race.
Vehicle safety needs to expand to the other side of the windshield.
Vehicle safety needs to expand to the other side of the windshield.
I would take it further and day that regulations should prioritize the safety of the people outside the vehicle over the people inside, for the simple reason that the people buying the vehicle already have a strong incentive to maximize their own safety, while they currently have zero concerns about the safety of pedestrians.
Pedestrians, on the other hand, don’t have the freedom to choose which vehicle runs them over, so it is up to regulations to advocate for them because nobody else will.
I’ve legit heard people say things along the lines of “The largest SUV or trucks are safer for Americans because it can hold up better in a collision with deer which we have a lot of.” (Because apparently large wildlife aren’t common anywhere at all in the rest of the world.)
They have a point though, and they’ll hold up especially well against a specific, extremely common subspecies of deer called “humans.”
Different things. Tumblr actually banned NSFW, Reddit is reminding its mods that using tools provided by a platform to try and harm that platform is pointless. I have no idea what people thought would happen tbh. That Reddit would look at subs going "we're going to go NSFW mode entirely for the sake of denying Reddit ad revenue", not even bothering to change rules, and just say "yeah, fair cop"?
Screw the movie theatres anyway… Here in Australia, there are two big ones (Hoyts and Village), and both screw patrons by doing things like charging patrons extra money for booking online.
In fact, they ruined every joke in the simpsons movie for me (except one) by allowing ads to use clips from the movie. By 45mins of ads, every joke was ruined.
I really wish the big theatres here would f off, and get replaced entirely by small ones. I don’t pay for 40mins of sh***y coca cola ads.
I no longer go at all. It’s not a good experience, and its not even a good place to take a date
I could maybe get the fee if it was a small place just passing on the presumed credit card charge that goes with ordering online IF they provided a discount for paying cash. A lot of small shops around here do that because the extra 3% or so paid to a bank makes it that much harder to keep prices anywhere near the Walmarts and such.
I wouldn’t be against that if it were the case, but ordering by phone they didn’t charge the fee for using a card. It was only the next month when doing by computer. It was a small local chain, but a website user fee to refill is next level BS. Still our only choice when insurance discount cover medication and you have to pay someone to mix it in house to afford it.
I'm saying they are probably being charged some portion of website sales specifically by the vendor of the web service provider. Which realistically makes sense, because regular online retail already almost always takes a percentage and there are significantly stronger regulatory requirements around anything medical.
Yeah I doubt it’s much of that considering their crappy home brewed website without any type of real portal system. you literally have to email them a picture of your old bottle to get a refill. It’s almost a WordPress website. Almost. I disagree that it makes sense. That’s called overhead and should be figured into their operating costs. Otherwise I would expect customers that come in physically to do business to be charged a brick and mortar fee since I don’t utilize that “feature”. If it were my pharmacy I’d fire them like they deserve, but it’s my partner’s choice.
theverge.com
Top