81–90 of 94 posts
Apart from being barely significant in the first place, the article lacks the context to even make its point. Journalists are meant to do research. This is just a big, sloppy retweet.
Perhaps merch is the path to successful monetisation of software products? The Something Awful forums had a $9.95 registration fee. I'm sure markup on those $40 shirts is more than that. Some game developers also embraced this business model: https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/745810196/deep-rock-gal... Personally I would not spend this much on a plastic mug, but it seems there were enough takers to fund continued…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't get it, could you explain the joke?
Sure. It's ironic, because someone saying "Emperor or Bust" is trying to become the emperor. Zuck is already zuck, so "Zuck or nothing" is throwing shade at everyone trying to be him.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> BlueSky wants to be the next Facebook/Twitter, so IMO by not getting the joke the Bluesky shirt is a self-own. The point of the shirt seems to be that they don't want to be the next facebook. The article clarifies that. Whether they'll live up to that promise if they grow is another issue.
Oh they'll live up to the promise, because of the protocol's technical architecture. Also mentioned in the article, if they decide to go on a direction the public doesn't like, it's an easy fork.
I've considered standing up a PDS a few times, and I think if I was going to design a financial incentive I'd wrap up a static blog host and personal cloud storage so I could charge a market rate fee (5 bucks a month for 100GB storage, whatever Dropbox is charging) and bluesky publishing and following just tacked on as a value add.
the real money would be in extending the protocol to support distributed marketplaces, so hosts could each have their own rules - disrupt Etsy, eBay, Facebook marketplace, but at some point you're getting into Silk Road 3.0 territory
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Funding =/= monentization, and the former presupposes a need for the latter
The monetization strategy has already been announced. I’m pointing out that there is no near-term scenario where the bills aren’t getting paid.
Also accepting investment from Bain Capital is a terrible omen.
> (Yes, it is weird that Zuck goes out of his way to compare himself to a violent dictator.) Why can't news sites just report the news? Why do they need to tell me what to think about it?
because apparently 77M Americans can't add 2 and 2 when it comes to wannabe dictators
In some ways this fits the election of Donald Trump - he was designated as a temporary magistrate who was granted extraordinary powers in order to deal with state crises - but in most ways it does not. Trump does not possess absolute power nor is a member of a small group which possesses such power as the plethora of court cases blocking his decisions make clear. The real important bit here is this:
> apparently 77M Americans
That is the majority of the voting public which you're lambasting for making the wrong decision. Here's a bit more on that subject, read it well:
https://www.britannica.com/topic/democracy and https://www.britannica.com/topic/republic-government
Don't agree with the majority and think they should listen to you or your group instead? There are names for such forms of government as well, names which are generally portrayed as being opposites of the two I pointed at earlier.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yeah and New York Post calls itself a newspaper but we all know it's some trashy shit.
That's reflected on its wikipedia page [0], too. Note the word "tabloid": > The New York Post (NY Post) is an American conservative daily tabloid newspaper published in New York City. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_Post
Aside from that Wikipedia is not a good source to decide whether a publication is to be trusted due to its heavy political bias. The New York Post has a conservative bias while (English-language) Wikipedia has a heavy 'progressive´ bias as is reflected by its list of what they consider to be 'reliable/perennial sources' [1] which closely resembles a political litmus test.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Per...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
because apparently 77M Americans can't add 2 and 2 when it comes to wannabe dictators
dictator, in modern political systems, a single person who possesses absolute political power within a country or territory or a member of a small group that exercises such power. The term comes from the Latin title dictator, which in the Roman Republic designated a temporary magistrate who was granted extraordinary powers in order to deal with state crises. Modern dictators, however, resemble ancient tyrants rather…
the 77M people were not the majority but a plurality, although i'm not sure there is a 2000 y.o. definition for that to help you cope
don't look too far for a president who has been elected by a minority, it happened as recently as 2016
Earlier quoted context omitted.
dictator, in modern political systems, a single person who possesses absolute political power within a country or territory or a member of a small group that exercises such power. The term comes from the Latin title dictator, which in the Roman Republic designated a temporary magistrate who was granted extraordinary powers in order to deal with state crises. Modern dictators, however, resemble ancient tyrants rather…
weird you would prefer to use the 2000 y.o. definition of dictator than the current one but if that helps you cope, be my guest the 77M people were not the majority but a plurality, although i'm not sure there is a 2000 y.o. definition for that to help you cope don't look too far for a president who has been elected by a minority, it happened as recently as 2016
He used a modern definition. It referenced the origin of the term.
> the 77M people were not the majority but a plurality
What distinction are you trying to make here? That not everyone voted?
He called it the majority of the voting population.
> cope
heh