FourPacketsOfPeanuts @ FourPacketsOfPeanuts @lemmy.world

Posts

8

Comments

992

Joined

2 yr. ago

behold: https://lemmy.world/comment/14678864

default behaviour of Windows Media Player.....

Xennial here. My non-admin use is probably split 60% learning, 30% programming, 10% gaming

"I want to get to know you"

That is true. Why people think enormous content servers should be run for free boggles my mind..

I should have stated it the other way round. Free and ad driven by default (like normal and like what people are used to) but an optional premium tier that removes ads and gives more control of your feed.

I had a washing machine that made audible chirps as you dialed through the programs and an irritating ditty whenever you engaged a program. It couldn't be turned off. That was on a physical dial. But it also had flat touch buttons with no bevel or edge or tactile feedback - and these were always silent - so most of the time you didn't know if you'd really pressed it or not. God. The first time I used it I was like.. "what the fuck". It was brand new in 2023. I cannot comprehend how someone can design, make, and program something so stupid.

I always wanted to see genres merged into one great big epic universe

Plan and manage a galactic empire in the Civilization paradigm

Enter individual space battles like Eve Online..

Force boarding of captive ships and battle through them like Quake..

But have all this connected and running simultaneously.. you might be rushing though a FPS battle inside a ship trying to control of it when another Frigate in the space battle blows it apart etc. Or even as the ships bridge and navigation remains under hostile control you manage to take control of its weapons and use them to aid your side. Possibilities are endless..

Israel cares more about their people than Hamas does theirs. Discuss.

You are having what's called a crisis of faith and an existential crisis. Don't worry, millions of people have been through this ahead of you and come out the other side.

A variation happened to me last week that's why it came to mind. Was opening an mp4 recorded on a digital camera on a new laptop. So the stock player had a go and gave a message similar to the above. vlc was installed moments later and of course had no issue..

I think capitalist ghoulishness dominates innovation at the moment. Because massive resources will always be ahead doing new things. But at some point - I hope - a fairly agreeable social network becomes a sort of 'solved problem'. Perhaps some FOSS version becomes available that's not cutting edge but gets the job done. It would lack the sophisticated needed to coerce people and milk their attention, but that's not needed for our purposes.

some new weird video format opens windows stock media player because it's not yet associated with vlc

"Hey.. it looks like your going to have to buy a codec..."

manually open in vlc where it runs seemlessly

I'm wondering how long it'll be till social media is basically a 'solved problem'. As in, there becomes available a foss clone of Facebook (or whatever) that's close enough to be useable and enjoyable. If such a thing were set up with ads design need to cover costs not maximise profit (and therefore there aren't as many) or with a reasonable priced ad free tier that covers costs and only a modest profit then would people possibly be attracted to such an "ethical" offering?

How about it starts free + ad based like any other network but offers a premium tier that removes ads and gives full control of feed that current networks don't offer. They don't offer this because manipulating people is apparently far more lucrative than any reasonably priced premium tier. But this is only because they're a 'profit at any cost' company. If an alternative ethical social network advertised the fact that it only makes a modest profit so that it's free tier is ad based but not unhealthy and the premium tier is reasonably priced. I wonder if such a thing is possible.

Obviously no current network does this because they're investor funded and committed to max profits.

Yes. I perhaps should have stated the other way round.

What about "ethical" social network. That's free and ad based if you want that. And the ads are present but less manipulative because the goal is to cover costs not maximise profit.

And then that's a premium option if you want to have no ads and full control of your content feed.

The reason Facebook and co don't offer this is because they apparently make massive amounts from each user ($68). And that only because they engage in whatever ghoulish behaviour get people locked in enough to deliver that

An ethical social network wouldn't have to drive as much per user, because it would publicly limit itself to modest profit. Covering free use with ads presumably possible. Cost of premium being running cost + modest profit seems like it wouldn't be that high surely?

People hate subscription based models because the company is maximising profit and engaging in every kind of bait and switch it can get away with

That's why I'm wondering if there would be an appetite for an ethical social network, where the DNA of the company is based upon covering running costs and only a moderate profit.

The fact that it wouldn't unreasonable hike prices once you're hooked in or reintroduce ads to paid tiers would be the very appeal on the platform.

Obviously, no-one is immune to being offered millions in ad deals to try and reverse that ethical stuff. Which is why I suppose it would either have to be a very public commitment to ethical behaviour from the outset which protects backtracking and sellouts somewhat. Or else it has to get founded as an actual not-for-profit to make a future change almost impossible. Developers still get paid of course, even very well. Just no-one has the incentive to maximise share value by shitty crooked behaviour.

That's the idea - it's a choice. If people want free or don't care about ads - then that's how their use gets funded. For people who want no ads and no curation of their feed to favour advertisers , then theres the premium option.

I guess the difference would be the premium cost is self limited to running costs + modest profit and for this reason the whole site is promoted as ethical..

Really? Jeez. Last I heard, evidently incorrectly, was a few dollars at best. That explains their ghoulishness somewhat.

Even so, Facebook brings in enormous profit. Evidently a result of maximizing whatever they can get away with

I'm wondering what the costs are to cover just hosting / content delivery.

Ie, is it feasible at some point that a not-for-profit social platform comes about. Or a for profit one that promotes itself as ethical and subsequently charges premium users based on running costs + moderate profit rather than pushing every kind of manipulative behaviour it can get away with just to maximise ad value.