that's an easy one.
google is an ad company, their main customers are the people who buy ads, pretending you need a toilet seat let's them charge toilet seat makers more to "target" you
@programming.dev
that's an easy one.
google is an ad company, their main customers are the people who buy ads, pretending you need a toilet seat let's them charge toilet seat makers more to "target" you

I'm not promoting DDG, I don't use it either, just saying that they do provide a no ai version (currently at least)
Also note that no LLM doesn't mean no "promoted" listings
Pretty sure the (arguably) oldest profession of humanity is pretty much all out of fucks to give for peoples opinions of it.
but hey, some basic-ass bad-faith drive-by statements might just be the thing we need to turn this all around, keep it up, i expect the tide to turn any day now.
Leaving out details is also bias. Especially when those details are pertinent to the subject being reported on.
That he was talking about state policies could arguably be said to warrant including politics based details of the situation. Him being a failed presidential candidate and attending said event with a representatives of an anti-government extremist group would probably qualify for that.
The difference between:
Man speaks at length against restrictions to future meat-production quota's
vs
Man known for previously running on a platform of meat-quota deregulation. speaks at length against restrictions to future meat-production quota's, surrounded by meat industry lobbyists.
Yes, the second one sounds more negative, but that's not necessarily bias.
Small bit of relative truth mixed with hypocrisy, dog-whistle, complaint, misunderstanding of word, misunderstanding of concept of voting population.
You hit all the highlights, personally i'd have gone with more dogwhistles, maybe something to do with immigrants ?
A solid 8/10 shitpost.
Vast means large btw, as in big.
I see this argument a lot and it entirely glosses over the fact that the market is at least one order of magnitude larger, possibly two.
The cost of a game is the development, marketing, maintenance to some degree and in some cases physical production of the medium.
Past that it's gravy.
You charge 70 in the 1990's times 100,000 sales vs charging 70 now to a million sales.
It's not like producing a car where you have a fixed unit cost, this is mostly copying already made data.
Yes, the tertiary costs can go up and the development costs can go up but the addressable market has also gone up significantly.
Nintendo specifically is absolutely not living release to release and is the worst possible example for this argument.
Not only do they not really do sales but they also have DLC all the way up the wazoo and frequently rerelease old games at current market prices, with minor tweaks.
They do not, however, lean all the way in to microtransactions, which is nice
To me this reads as:
< preemptive justification for saying something controversial and/or indefensible >
< controversial statement with no justification or reasoning >
"Not going to explain because it's obvious"
Probably not how it was intended, but that's some weak sauce
The trick is for it to obviously cost them more to not act.
Good luck with that, hasn't worked so far.
Not that you shouldn't boycott the shit out of Nintendo if you want to, just don't hold your breath while waiting for them to do something that isn't profit motivated.
cheery picking laws aside
That would imply there was "cherry" picking to be set aside.
cherry picking in this case would imply picking only the law(s) that supports the bias of the poster, to the exclusion of other laws that contradict this position.
I'd be interested in seeing the contradicting laws you think would make this cherry picking, do you have any links ?
thanks for using Leebra!
go to feed...