They also took away the ability to specify your answer separately from the answer you were looking for from others, so now it's just "did you say the same thing." Which doesn't make any sense for some questions, like "do you prefer a partner that is a) taller than you, b) shorter than you, c) doesn't matter", if you both picked A or B, you aren't a match for this question!
chaos
joined 2 years ago
I mean, yeah, I said they should've told people, that was a bad decision on their part. I'm just saying if it was a conspiracy to sell more iPhones, it was a dumb one, because the net effect was to make the phone more usable. It wasn't crippled, certainly not more than "this thing just shuts down when the camera is opened sometimes."
Yup. I had an iPhone 6S that was affected by this. When the battery was starting to get older, things like opening the camera would sometimes just cause the phone to die. I got the battery replaced for free, but flipping it to throttle instead of randomly shut itself down was an improvement, and likely extended the usable lives of the affected phones, not artificially shorten them. It shouldn't have been done secretly but it wasn't a conspiracy to sell more iPhones.
Beehaw's been holding back because they want to switch to Sublinks, and going past 0.18.4 would've made migration harder. But Sublinks has been slow to be ready and it's getting untenable to wait much longer, so they'll be upgrading to the latest Lemmy sometime. I'll be happy to finally switch to the actual app version of Voyager when they do, for now I've been self-hosting the last version of the web app that worked.
Yeah, I only know it from Hitchhiker's Guide, where Oolon Colluphid follows up his famous proof of the non-existence of God with a proof that black is white and gets run down at a zebra crossing. I was a kid when I first read it so I took it literally, haha. It does kinda fit with the other absurd bits of that series.
It's possible for the rich and poor to both suffer. Of course, when the rich "suffer" that mostly means they can't have all the new things they want and have to settle for the excess they already have. When the poor suffer, they're devastated and unable to live a decent life.
(Yes, the rich get richer by stealing from the poor. A worker at Amazon causes $N to be paid to the company from her efforts, but Amazon will pay her less than $N so they can make money. The difference goes to the rich, whose only contribution was having their name on the paperwork. Billions and billions of dollars flowing toward people who are doing, at best, hundreds of thousands of dollars' worth of actual work themselves. There aren't enough hours in the day to earn the money these people are raking in. It should be going to the people actually doing the work.)
It's the same rule, "fair use". Copyright isn't absolute, it needs to strike a balance between "give creators control of their thing" but also "people deserve to participate in our collective culture."
Making a one-off drawing of a character and not trying to make money off of it likely checks the fair use boxes (it's an explicitly fuzzy system, so a trial would be needed to say for sure if it's fair use or not). Whether the training set for a generative AI system is fair use or not is still an open question, but many feel that it can't be, as it's operating on a massive scale (basically every image ever created by humanity) and has the potential to eliminate the entire industry of humans selling the art they create, which copyright is supposed to protect. Ghibli isn't going to be harmed by someone drawing a picture of their characters for a meme. It could be harmed by another company making money off of mass production of knockoffs of their style which were created with thousands of unauthorized copies of their direct artwork.
Even if the right move was "give up and do what the Republicans want," they still did a terrible job. House Democrats held the line and stuck their necks out, only to get blindsided, and Schumer shouldn't have signaled that there'd be a fight right before he caved. The left hand doesn't know what the right hand is doing, and only a handful of people in the party seem to even be trying to do anything.
The only objection to that is that first episodes are usually pilots where they haven't sorted out everything and have to spend the whole episode setting up the premise of the show, not actually doing the show. Episode 2 is a lot more likely to be representative of everything that comes after it. But other than that, yeah, of course, just walk away, hit da bricks, real winners quit.
I'm bitterly clinging to my iPhone 13 mini, because I suspect it's the last phone I'll ever actively enjoy. I went along with bigger phones when that became the trend and decided I didn't like them, and the mini line was such a relief to go back to. Once it's no longer tenable, I'll probably just buy a series of "the least bad used phone I can find" because I know I'll be mildly frustrated every time I use it.
I'm still using an iPhone mini and I haven't experienced any bad layouts, broken websites, or any difficulty like that. It has the same resolution of the biggest iPhone I've ever had (iPhone X) so things are smaller, which would make it a poor fit for someone with poor vision, but for me it's an absolutely perfect phone. It's frustrating to know that the perfect phone for me could easily exist, and yet Apple will refuse to make it for me. I'll be stuck with phones I don't like for the rest of my life, it seems.
view more: next ›
CNAMEs can only point to other domains. Redirects like that would be handled on the HTTP level, so you'd need a web server in the mix that sends requesters to the right place when they try to access the subdomain. It can redirect to anywhere, not just domains you control, so the Bluesky example would be handled the same way as the other one.