421–430 of 457 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No, attempting to prevent money from flowing into a country which is actively waging war against neighbors is not racism.
Thanks, I'll be sure to make a huge deal everytime I see software from Israel
Earlier quoted context omitted.
He is in Chile. The company linked was liquidated in 2021 (including other companies called Sarafan that he created in the past). How did you deduce that money goes to Russia?
Can we guarantee that he has no family or friends in russia that he sends money to? Or that he hires russian contractors etc?
And you know what? Some other people might say: 'Well, this guy is black, and black guys are more likely to commit crimes, so it makes sense if we follow him around the store to make sure that he doesn't steal anything.' And some other people might say: 'Well, he looks like he might be a Muslim, and radical Islamists are more likely to be terrorists, so it is fair that we select him for some additional screening at the airport.'
Would you agree with all those people as well? And if not, what do you think is the difference between you and them?
Something feels off... those apps don't seem like 33K/MRR worthy. I suspect some kind of manipulation was being done to... help?
For sure, this seems super suspect. Unless they mean Chilean Pesos, but that would seem far too low.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I hear your argument, but it's not convincing. Your logic states that because an app can occasionally slip through the review process, that we should remove -all- protections. That isn't better, that's worse. A scam is also a relatively low bar to set for such drastic change, since scams also frequently occur over chat apps and the kinds of access that side-loading and 3rd party stores can avail opens the door to sig…
I've been using an antimalware system which has been highly successful at blocking all sorts of malware. It's where I don't run invasive closed source programs on my computers and give them access to all my shit, and I don't just give my credentials and money to anyone that asks. In other words, basic computer practices from decades ago. I know that this system may be unattainable for some, namely children, the elder…
I think somehow Apple found a way to group both limited intellects and intellectually dishonest. This way the second group can pry on the first one and they seem very happy about that.
If you were to listen to them, every windows PC is infested with malware, yet even my grandma that is over 80 years old operates a windows PC without much trouble. She doesn't install nonsense and ask competent people about stuff. Which is exactly the kind of relation Apple wants to steal. So they can charge a lot of money for it, making people dependent so they are fragile. And when they have no other choice anymore, charge as much as you can. Classic sociopath behavior...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I've been using an antimalware system which has been highly successful at blocking all sorts of malware. It's where I don't run invasive closed source programs on my computers and give them access to all my shit, and I don't just give my credentials and money to anyone that asks. In other words, basic computer practices from decades ago. I know that this system may be unattainable for some, namely children, the elder…
Don't bother, Apple fanboys are delusional. They would willingly slave themselves for the Apple religion. And they generally are extremely dishonest, which is why they want "protection". It easy to see wrong doing everywhere when yourself are operating in a bad way most of the time. I think somehow Apple found a way to group both limited intellects and intellectually dishonest. This way the second group can pry on th…
If you need to strawman the opposing point of discussion. Then you don't have an argument, instead you're the fanatic.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It is strange to mention that he is in Chile and not mention that he is a Russian citizen, and the apps come from a Russian company that was recently re-registered(??? or not) somewhere else. It could be sanctions, and it is not related to reviews at all.
I mean, Viktor doesn’t sound very Chilean to me.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Google can’t figure out how to make money without ads They can and they have. YouTube Premium exists! You can pay for it! The two business models that are feasible for YouTube are (1) free and you have to see ads and (2) paid and you don’t have to see ads. They offer both. I don’t think it’s reasonable to expect to be allowed to pick (1) but opt out of the ad side of the bargain. Their ad-blocking shenanigans are o…
I subscribe to YouTube premium because I think it's worth it. Lots of people have called me a "sucker" or worse, a Google shill, for paying money for a "free service." These same people then turned around and threw a temper tantrum when YouTube started detecting and punishing ad blockers. I think after years of enjoying a free service people have become extremely entitled about it.
YouTube created this mess. Under the disguise of "free money" they attracted all kind of creators/organisation lured into a video hosting platform (something that is expensive to do at scale) under the unsustainable promise of "we host your stuff for free and you can even make money out of it". This removed most of the risk for launching video production activity but also killed diversity of potential business models and alternative sources/technical solutions. Now both parties are extremely greedy and want even more money because somehow, they think they have a captive audience. YouTube shove more ads and creators shove more sponsor bullshit. They are the ones full of shit, it's not the people requesting a fairer deal that are entitled, you have it backward. I used to watch YouTube completely with ads up until 1-2 years ago; it just became unwatchable and pretty much every "creator" has some sort of ad in the video anyway.
It's particularly disgusting because in general those are people already making 3-4 times median/average wage with complete freedom and what would be considered low output in a traditional job paying way less. Like most tech companies, YouTube enforced winner take all feudalism and single source for maximum control on the market.
If those creators had started their own website with their own hosting and figured out a way to monetize this (subscriptions, their own ads with sponsors, products, etc) and actually taken any risk to start (like pretty much every single business has to) we would not be here.
It's a situation entirely created by dishonest representation of reality and then trying to impose rules by force to extract even more money. If YouTube needs more money to run, they better ask the creators placing ads all over their content to pay for the bandwidth/views. It's completely wrong to blame AdBlock users, they alone created wrong incentives and they alone are the one responsible for all the monetization shenanigans/cheating going on...
As far as I'm concerned, I'm pretty happy they are going at war with AdBlock, because we will see what's what. It may open up opportunities somewhere else, because I don't see people paying for Premium and I don't see people sticking around with so many ads. People's attention is going to be redirected somewhere else (free or cheaper content exists, starting with the public library or TV) and we may get something better out of that.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I recall visiting websites before Google was even made. In any case, the internet does not only exist within Google’s search index. For example, I can post a URL in this comment, and you would be able to visit it, even if Google did not keep it in its search index. The only question is how much work do people want to do to spread knowledge of theirs or others’ website, and how much work do people want to do to find t…
Good luck with that. If Chrome won't display it that's that for 45% of your possible visitors. If the domain-without-a-tld doesn't come up as the first link in your average browser that's another 40% or so, if your ISP doesn't like you or if your certificate is the wrong color (or your bits for that matter) then that's the remainder. To compare the web as it is today with what went before is a bit silly because we ha…
For now, it looks like they have no competition, but the foundation is here, it's just that the potential competitors are starved for ressource. Just a bit of redirection will get the ball rolling and a lot of choices will suddenly appear.
The only thing is that most people do not care and have very basic needs. We mostly shouldn't care about those people. They cannot for the life of them being interested in anything technical and will not make any effort to learn and use worthwhile tools. They also have very low interest in knowledge. So, they will follow without much questioning, I know this for a fact from all the servicing I do around me. They will do what you tell them, if you tell them Google or Chrome is bad, they will accept.
The problem is getting something as good as Google or Chrome. So far nothing really match...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So how do you get an app onto the iphone if they don't have a monopoly on apps on their phones? What other store can I use to get apps on a iPhone?
You don't seem to understand what a monopoly is. You can't arbitrarily put an app onto their hardware because they built it so you couldn't. However, not all hardware is created by them. You're free to purchase a different phone, and you can even make the number of app stores supported a primary buying decision.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/monopoly
> exclusive ownership through legal privilege, command of supply, or concerted action > exclusive possession or control
You seem to be under the impression that only one type of monopoly exists (IE: Android exists so Apple doesn't have a monopoly).
But do you realize that that's no the only thing that can be monopolized?
So again... on the iPhone platform? who has "exclusive possession or control" over apps on the iPhone?