You and people who hold beliefs like yours should just pick a new name for yourselves, I’ve tried to convince family members of this for years. Let the jerks have the name they tainted, pick a better name for your beliefs, and get out of the way for people to condemn the institution of Christianity for it’s actions.
You shouldn’t feel responsible for them. You should just let them suffer the consequences of their actions and get outta the way.
This image of a cube conveys an emotion I do not know the word for.
Apple is interested in maintaining full control of what apps can be on their platform and how they are presented because it gives them power over negotiations with companies that build the apps. They are basically able to “name their price” and make sure they are always getting as big of a cut as they would like.
The EU is interested in not letting them do that because that kind of “negotiating” behavior is pretty well understood to be anti-consumer. Increased costs for app developers are usually passed directly onto the consumer through the prices. And it tends to get worse over time.
No company anywhere wants to use webapps anymore. Apps installed on devices are free advertising and access to user data. It is frustrating but the way it is, on all devices, already. So basically the answer is the same as why can’t most apps that already exist on all devices anyways just be web apps.
I don’t think sideloaded would be quite the right word, this is about access to other app stores (like the google play store or amazon app store, or more niche ones) that would then formally and automatically install and maintain apps exactly the same way the apple app store already does, presumably just with a different library of apps to choose from.
Apps from another app store would need no access to any API by apple unless they were specifically interacting with apple services, AFAIK. Which, would be under the full control of apple and apple chooses who uses it, how, and how much they use it, but that is already the case regardless.
I tried to answer your confusions as best as I can do with what I know already. As for why people take this so personally, I would say it is a complex topic combining businesses that are constantly trying to drive each other out of business with the social effects of making the tool people use to communicate a status symbol. And it has been brewing for long enough that people are getting extreme opinions and fostering long term grudges based on personal experience, to the point that some people have some real hatred towards anyone who has a different phone OS than them.
This was a long comment to type and I did it while laying in bed half asleep. Sorry if it has a bunch of typos or errors lol
I won’t call you names but this literally doesn’t make any sense to me. In no way would the apple app store be affected, your walled garden is safe. To extend the metaphor, this is like giving you the option to take walks in other gardens, but your walled garden is still where you left it, gate locked.
Thanks for answering. Idk who downvoted you for answering a question lol
You know, as much as people here say they aren’t happy with it, I haven’t seen any specific complaints that detail the problems. What bad change does windows 11 even make from windows 10?
Not saying I don’t see problems with windows, there are… A lot. But what are the new problems with windows 11?
Edit: to the people downvoting as if you disagree with me: I’m literally asking a question because I don’t know much about windows 11. I am not trying to make any kind of statement for or against windows 11, I just don’t know what the current flavor of bullshit is and wanted to.
I’m not here to argue the finer points, and in general I simply try to aim for the practical actions that lead to better circumstances. I agree with many of your points.
This lawsuit won’t fix anything but it will slow down the progress of OpenAI and their ability to loot culture and content for all it’s value. I see it as a foot in the door for less economically capable artists and such.
Lawsuits are not isolated incidents. The outcome of this will have far reaching impacts on the future of how people’s work is treated in regards to AI and training data.
Noooooooooo. No.
Everyone and every organization has a bias. Even a “neutral” bias is a bias. Finding out which way their bias leans is good info to figure out.
For someone who claimed to not be a fan of OpenAI, you sure do know all the fan arguments against regulation for AI.
Some people are missing the forest for the trees here
Having a businesses app on your phone is better regular advertising than anything they could ever pay for.
They just want an excuse to make you look at their logo and think about their business as regularly as possible
You wanted to say “You can be on lemmy without bringing reddit here.” And phrased it as a bad question so you could post it here. You just want to soapbox.
Managing the content of your own feed is your responsibility. If people post off topic in communities, handle it with a report, not another post.
You are creating what you are complaining about. This thread is the most discussion about reddit I’ve seen in a week or more.
I mean if you want to know how it would effect me it wouldn’t. Posts from beehaw don’t even come up, flooded out by more active communities, unless I go directly to the beehaw comms. I functionally use it as a seperate website anyways now, if I ever feel like checking it.
I don’t really understand your overall goal talk tho. You want to be nice in an intentionally vague way, but you feel like federation is somehow limiting you from achieving this vague state of niceness… Is it just moderation difficulties (not to downplay them) or is something else about leaving the fediverse door open problematic to being nice?
To be blunt the solution to your problems seems to me the same as every single other time beehaw federation is talked about: the community you want to achieve will require many more moderators than a typical community of equivalent size, they will need specialized mod tools, they will need to be high quality skilled highly vetted mods, and you will need exponentially more of them the more users appear on beehaw. Federation doesn’t directly stop you from doing any of that, but it does lead to faster growth, which leads to too much work if you aren’t constantly adding moderators to match growth.
You should be asking yourself how big you want beehaw to be, and how big of a beehaw you think can be achieved at all.
Sorry I didn’t mean to be this rambly when I started writing ignore it if you want
We may never have a good answer for why the gay nerdy communists love the colorful scifi communist space adventures
deleted by creator
That is exactly my point. Glad you could see it my way.
Except for the draw part. This wasn’t a competition, and in the nicest way possible, I’ll just walk away from this thinking you are fully incorrect, and I assume you will do the same about me. “Agree to disagree” is more for people who actually know each other. Bye stranger!
You said this:
Perhaps, but it will likely at least severely reduce it.
I rejected that. I didn’t say “there would be the same amount of abortions no matter the law” or anything like you seem to think. I don’t think it would be “severely” reduced, and the negatives are extreme to the point of being unacceptable.
As for the data you want me to provide, I refer to the other things said. Unless you agree to also put in the effort to provide data to support your argument, I’m not going to put in all that effort for a random internet convo. Since you made the first claim (at least that I interacted with) (“Perhaps, but it will likely at least severely reduce it”), you can go first.
To be blunt I find the behaviour of demanding rigorous sources and academic honesty in internet arguments obnoxious and hypocritical. Very few people read them, they just want them as stamps of approval. And most conversations I see where someone is demanding sources, they are who should be logically providing sources to the conversation. It is just a silly part of internet culture dancing around pretending to be intellectualism. On a personal level I do love sources though, when they get posted. Not just for accuracy, I find them fun to read.
Alright I’m gunna take this point by point because broadly I understand what you are trying to get at but you have a few details that bother me and I feel derail the whole thing.
But I didn’t make the claim that this was definitely going to happen, just that it was the likely outcome
Me neither, I was talking about historical precedent, not some hard and fast rule of the universe.
based on the common sense assumption that if abortion access wasn’t easy, safe, and anonymous, and involved a significant risk of injury or death for the mother, more women would likely find it less risky to carry their pregnancy to term and give up the baby for adoption
First of all, with the “death or injury” part of this, I don’t see why this is preferable. Seems like threatening their lives and happiness in the interest of forcing births. But also, this assumes there aren’t other ways this can shake out in the end, and child abuse, abandonment and childhood homelessness, and human trafficking are all part of this topic and all things that increase when abortion is illegal. Your common sense assumption is based on a situationally perfect example, and it doesn’t make sense when applied to real world experiences.
if they haven’t changed their mind on it by then.
This is just a piece of that bullshit take that argues women will learn to love their future babies if they are just forced to carry them long enough that abortions are more difficult and less legally accessable. Nah
From my point of view, I find the claim that making abortion illegal would not prevent even a single one from occurring far more incredulous and therefore requiring a higher level of proof.
Good thing I wasn’t claiming that then. I’m saying the amount prevented would be negligible, not magically impossibly zero. It would likely be a small amount, and utterly overshadowed by the negative effects of banning abortions.
I honestly wouldn’t know where to start looking for data on that.
Generally any search engine is a good start, although you can go to google scholar if you want more academic and dense results. Then, just look for what experts/doctors are saying. Try to stick to groups that verify each other and are verified by outside groups, individual experts are fallible on who knows what, so trust the experts that other experts seem to trust. Generally unless you want to be a researcher yourself, these are the most trustworthy and direct sources for data and such you can possibly get.
Solution is simple, community should turn any suspiciously product focused thread into an advertisers nightmare of filth
Then the ads will just be the ones with the comment sections turned off