Both are bad choices. When reddit says open /r/pics or else, you just delete /r/pics.
Reddit has NEVER been profitable. It's the classic:
Takes a bunch of venture capital funding
Builds a huge user base
Get bought
Parent company tries to figure out a way to make money off of you.
When they can't, they try to spin you off and IPO you.
You have your "oh shit" moment and realize you actually have to be profitable now.
This is the crap that caused the dot-com bubble in the late 90s.
Their current business model is unsustainable.
They're doing the API war out of sheer survival.
The sad part is, we all went along for the ride, using the service and filling it with useful information, never wondering if it was still going to be there a decade or two later.
Reddit wants to IPO. Having gone through the IPO process twice now with a company, I can tell you, the only thing that matters is money in the bank. The more money you have in the bank, the more you can charge for your IPO. When I worked at CompUSA back in the 90s, we didn't pay any of our creditors for something like 6 months before the IPO to swell the bank accounts. I remember the week before the IPO, we had almost nothing in the store, because we owed everyone money. 30 days after IPO, trucks came rolling in again with product.
This unfortunately is the truth, at the end of the day they will just find new moderators who wont be acting for the users or at least the majority. I'm a mod and although I want this to work and it may still have some impact realistically mods are powerless. Only users talking with their feet can really make a long term difference and there isn't a like for like replacement yet..
Really we don't want to force users off, we want users to want to leave because of how reddit treats it's free labour and content or for reddit to actually work with the subs it's demonizing
That would be true if they made i fees reasonable or at least gave more time. This change caused mobile apps to shut down. The revenue from that is $0.
This change sucks. But, from what I read, Reddit have NEVER been profitable. If they were smart, they would modified the API so it included ads. I don’t think Reddit is long for this world. Even if these protests were effective, reddit is eventually going away. They’re too big to make a profit now.
When you say “NEVER been profitable” is there a reliable source for that or is it spez?
Hosting a link agregator is cheap, it is purely just text. Yes they now host images and videos, and I think they shouldn’t do that if the cost is a problem, also they could always discontinue it.
Going back to the API. If they really need cash they could work with developers. They could reduce the fees and give 3 months heads up like they have been asked.
The whole spectacle didn’t sound “we need money to survive”, it sounded like “we could make more money from users by forcing them to switch to our crappy app, by shutting down 3rd party apps”
Nevertheless, like many IPOs, Reddit remains unprofitable. The question for investors is whether Reddit can achieve minimum viable economies of scale and achieve profitability. So far, there are no indications that this will happen.
There are few other sources that say reddit is unprofitale.
What I’m saying is that their core service doesn’t cost much to run. They could have small team to run everything and would make a lot of money, but their goal is to make it a billion dollar business, when it is not.
BTW: I also find the article funny, on one bad it says they are seeking $15 billion valuation, then it says it doesn’t generate money. So that creates a question, how come a company that doesn’t generate a profit costs $15 billion?
Wow, I totally forgot about CompUSA. I used to love going there as a kid, back when Apple had that underdog appeal. Now I'm a FOSS maxi (just don't look at my iPhone...).
Both are bad choices. When reddit says open /r/pics or else, you just delete /r/pics.
Hard disagree with your first sentence. As @Starmina explained, Reddit would just force re-open it.
And as explained in my comment, this is causing Reddit users to switch over to Lemmy due to the protesting subs getting stale: https://lemmy.world/comment/289241>
This is a bad take. When we, society, allow you to register as a business, we form an agreement. Part of that agreement is that you follow certain rules. We make those rules to better society.
Some rules are things like pay taxes, or don’t sell outdated food. Some rules are there to make sure anyone can shop there, without discussion.
Those rules are important because it’s very possible for a small number of business owners to make a group of people’s lives very difficult, especially out in rural areas where people don’t have a lot of options.
For a concrete example, let’s say Pfizer cures cancer. Do you want them to be able to say they won’t sell to Christians? You can’t just “go elsewhere”. But now this is allowed.
The much more dangerous part of this ruling is that the supreme Court ruled on a case where there was no standing. A lot of people don’t realize that having standing is one of the cornerstones of our legal structure. Now, in theory, any idiot could sue for any dreamed up scenario and have a much better chance of winning in court.
There are already regulations on discrimination. You cannot be discriminated against for your religious beliefs. However, Pfizer could choose not to service rapists. In which case, want the cure for cancer? Don’t rape. Having the option to not service someone based on their actions is very different than not servicing them because of who they are. If someone is being a dick to your employees, you should have the right to kick them out. Based on what you’re saying, you think no matter how much of an asshole they are, the employees should put up with it and be their personal assistant.
Society needs to codify these rules into law though otherwise bad actors break those rules. When a right wing activist supreme court removes these protections, people get hurt. But, a store like this isnt doing this to hurt people, it’s to make a statement that the far-rights own discrimination can backfire on them. It’s a form of protest and a statement, not true bigotry. Its like using the flying spaghetti monster tactic to push legislation to be more strict on religion. These people are trying ro show that regulation on business to prevent denying goods and services is important for everyone, not just minorities the the right hates.
Based on the Civil Rights Act of 1964, they cannot discriminate for any reason that is a protected status. However, they can makeup any reason for not serving them. That means some racist asshole could say they aren’t serving the black customer because they were rude or some other made up shit. Thankfully, your political stance is not a protected status.
Back in the 1990’s I was a member of the USCG Auxiliary, which, while made up entirely of civilian volunteers, we worked/trained with active duty USCG and wore very similar uniforms & insignia. The primary differences in our uniforms was we use silver wherever the USCG uses gold, and our insignia, epaulets, etc. have a big “A” in them. So if you know what to look for it’s fairly obvious, but to the casual observer there’s not much difference.
As civilian volunteers we don’t salute one another and don’t expect salutes from active duty USCG, but if someone did salute we would return it out of respect.
I was appointed a position on the USCGAUX National staff for a couple years and had a position that roughly equated to a commander (3 stripes). I occasionally traveled to various USCG training centers as a result, along with other Auxiliarists, and we’d wear our uniforms while on those trips.
We used to chuckle at the various reactions we’d see as we walked around these facilities. Virtually every senior USCG officer could spot us a mile away and offered nothing more than a polite nod or greeting as we passed. Younger members that had been in the USCG for a while would obviously start paying close attention as they got close, looking for a clear sign, then obviously relax when they realized they didn’t have to salute. Cadets and newer USCG personnel would only see the three stripes and immediately salute.
“Tricareatops” is another good one. The name comes from Tricare, the medical coverage provided to service members and their immediate family so it’s more or less the same as a dependapotamus.
So, a small anecdote from me, although from within the German Bundeswehr:
Back when I left school, Germany still had a mandatory 9 month military service (you could refuse military service in exchange for a civil service). The first three months were basic training and fairly strict, in that we had to salute higher ranking personell when we were in uniform. Our group had the luck of getting a private as a substitute group leader, someone who just finished their first 3 months. Since we were technically the same rank, we didn’t have to salute the first three months.
After our three months, everyone was transfered to different barracks, I was transfered to a military airport, specifically a helicopter sqaudron. So when I entered the hangars, I came across the first officer and saluted them, according to military conduct. They saluted back but immediately followed up, asking me to never do that again.
Air force pilots and their crew are almost exclusively officers and up, so when I was in the barracks, I would have to constantly salute, and they would have to salute back, and no one wanted that. So we were told not to salute, a friendly “good morning/day” would be enough.
There was only one person in the entire barracks that we were supposed to salute, and that was the barracks’ commander. Who, at their first visit to our squadron, told our squadron leader beforehand to have us not to salute him, either, so we didn’t.
Tl;dr: In my entire 9 months of military service, I only saluted once and was immediately told to never do that again.
Haha I experienced a similar rule during my 9 months. Stationed on Hardthöhe in Bonn they, have a severe rank-inflation going on with all the old generals and admirals marching towards retirement. It was only expected to salute any of the inspectors if youver met them.
Funny thing that I got loads of salutes from fresh soldiers transferred there as I was in the navy and thus had yellow stripes which confused many of the similarly ranked guys from the other branches.
Honestly thought this was going to end with the narrator holding a salute to Karen, as she becomes increasingly more frustrated, until she thinks to return a modicum of respect with a salute of her own.
I thought it was funny, I saw it as: big boobs equals much milk. I normally don't like to shame people for their sense of humor. Of course, there are some exceptions.
In the interest of transparency - I'm leaving this up for now because it's not illegal:
Sexualising the baby would be considered rule-breaking and the comment removed, but that isn't the case here
Sexualising the act of breastfeeding (which some people think this comment does - but it's not unanimous) is perhaps in poor taste, but not illegal in itself.
Expressing a preference for, uh, certain physical traits is fine, although that may again be viewed as creepy by some people.
As mod, I'll remove posts that are illegal, discriminatory or harassing, and this post doesn't meet those criteria. Regardless, the downvotes here should be a signal that some people find this distasteful.
Feel free to upvote/downvote this post if you agree or disagree. The decision above was made based on my own evaluation, but I'll use the vote spread on this comment as an indicator of whether the community prefers a stricter policy.
The EU regulation is not in force yet. I doubt Apple's current solution is in accordance to the new regulations despite the title making it seem as if Apple successfully sidestepped it.
Another user in the thread incorrectly thinks Apple's current port has also circumvented the USB-C port requirement with it's current port.
While regulations can be circumvented (sometimes by design) there is no benefit in a defeatist attitude where Apple (and other corps) are inevitably going to defeat customer protections.
exactly - the port law enters into effect next fall for all new models introduced after. Apple has iPhone 15 and 16 to comply. EU likes for their big industry actions to come on reaaaaaly slow … partly as a defense against the industry arguing they did not have time to prepare
The EU generally operates under the principle of the "spirit of the law," while in the US, courts typically operate under the principles of the "letter of the law." The EU will not take kindly to attempts to skirt the spirit of the law, and their penalties have teeth.
Damn that’s a great dad! Instead of letting his frustration build he was able to set all that aside and appreciate the clever adorable thing only a small child can do. I bet he is glad he ended that phone call
A large portion of my job is automating things, and whenever there's a discrepancy my immediate response is to check the automation for issues. Automation brings speed and consistency, but there's a significant difference between consistency and accuracy.
I love when the boots on the ground tell me I screwed up, because then I can pick their brains and make things better!
Our job is to build, but we aren’t experts in the field we are building software for. Detailed, high-quality feedback is insanely useful, because we are trying to get in the head of someone using our product day to day, but we can’t know exactly how or users want to work…
Automation brings speed and consistency, but there’s a significant difference between consistency and accuracy.
I deal with automation vs manual input a fair bit also, this is really accurate.
As a rule of thumb, when one or two cases go wrong, it's usually human error. If hundreds of cases go wrong at once, it's probably automation run amok.
maliciouscompliance
Active
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.