Jyek @ Jyek @sh.itjust.works

Posts

1

Comments

301

Joined

2 yr. ago

They aren't seeing the money they spend on Twitter back in most cases. Twitter as an ad platform is honestly terrible. There is very little targeting and even less control over what ads and content you don't want to be posted alongside. Facebook is terrible and evil and very no good bad but as someone who has used FB as an advertising platform, it is light-year beyond what you get out of Twitter. You can target your advertisements so specifically that you could effectively pin point a single user with the demographics settings alone. You want to advertise only to Russian grandmothers who live on farms in Michigan and play pickleball on the weekends? Facebook will get you there. On Twitter, you get next to no click through because the ads are annoying and irrelevant to the user. On Facebook, the clicks just come rolling in because users see things that they would have been interested in anyways.

The thing everyone is missing in these headlines is why advertisers left in the first place. They aren't leaving because there are horrible people on the platform and the CEO is a gobber with more money than sense. There are horrible people running these companies anyways. Anyone's money is good to them. No, advertisers have left because Twitter refuses to improve in any meaningful way for the users or the advertisers. Why would I spend money on Twitter when that same money will get me 10x more clickthroughs and all of them by my target demographic on Facebook?

The consumer is 90% to blame for the actions of an international corporation who have analyzed and manipulated their target demographic? If it were a relationship you'd be victim blaming. If I hit you for being stupid, is it your fault because you were stupid or is it my fault for thinking hitting you was a solution?

It's a shame that Firefox is still heavily reliant on Google. It's not chrome but we really do need some competition in this space that doesn't feed the monster and is also not safari lol.

I don't disagree. I disagree with the idea that it's 90% the fault of the consumer.

Weird how I said nothing about my personal opinion on gun control and only said that the primary force stopping gun control was arms lobbying.

90% on consumers? I don't know I'd go that far... If a company is evil but provides a service people still desire, that doesn't make the evil company being evil the fault of the consumers. Like saying gun control in America is resisted primarily by its citizens when we are well aware that company lobbying is mostly at fault and most citizens are actually for some amount of gun control.

They do that in Canada. The US sells milk in plastic jugs or cardboard cartons.

I feel the issue at hand is less about the number of years or terms leading, and instead is about how hard each party tries to revert the others progress for the sake of "my party better" even though at the end of the day, the majority of citizens all want the same things and effectively disagree on a narrow handful of topics that the media uses to divide us. If we could see past the manipulation and vote for the leaders that will unite us then we wouldn't need lifetime appointments because all of the leaders would be working together through time to move our country and world forward.

But as long as there is money in politics and ne'er-do-wells vying for power that we might allow into our leadership positions, we can stop them from driving our nation totally into the dirt by limiting how long they are allowed to serve. I feel similarly about Congress and the judiciary. Specifically age limits for Congress and both age and term limits for executive appointment supreme court seats.

Franklin D Roosevelt was a highly popular Democratic president who served 12 years (elected 4 times and then died in office) as president of the US. Generally speaking, the US has what are called term limits of 2 terms of 4 years maximum as the president. Before FDR, only a couple of presidents even attempted to run for a 3rd term as it was seen as tacky (though not illegal at the time) to try for longer service as the country's leader. The two term limit was a tradition set by the first president George Washington who had the opportunity to become first literally and then effectively king of the United States after the revolution but declined to serve longer than 8 consecutive years. This unwritten rule essentially went unbroken until FDR came to power with such popularity that his opposition in the elections didn't stand a chance.

Efforts to write into law the term limit tradition were spearheaded by Republicans for obvious reasons but in the end they were right to do so. The term limits should be used to stop situations like Putin in Russia and Xi in China who effectively run unopposed out of fear for people's lives. They are presidents as much as any dictator is president. They may be president in name but effectively, they run the country and manager to always win despite their unpopularity both locally and internationally and if they were to run a fair election, they would simply lose.

The OP was suggesting that FDR was effectively an American Dictator in the same fashion of Vladimir Putin because of the fact that he was elected so many times. But the fact of the matter is that FDR was an incredible force of popularity in the country and pushed for many changes that impact equality among Americans and his policies, while radical for the time, have influenced both ends of the American political discussion for the better.

That is nothing to say why Republicans dislike FDR having been such a popular leader. That you may want to do your own research on.

When you have a single income as an employee with no dependants or spouse, your taxes are dead simple. It's when you have more things to consider that taxes get complex. If you own a small business on the side, have some kids, own a house, a wife, maybe you came into some money from an estate, also you did some contract work on 1099... That's just normal people types of complex tax stuff. If your business does well, you can expect the adage "more money, more problems" to rear its ugly head.

Thanks A_Random_Idiot

Thanks powerbottomdad1

Don't let them fool you into thinking they're pro 2A. Some of the largest gun control bills have been from the GOP and the only presidents to pass specific gun restrictions have been republican. Reagan is the reason CA has such strict gun laws from bills he passed as the governor. Trump enacted the current ban on bump stocks. The GOP is pro "guns for me and not for thee."

It is normal. It's been this way for ± 15 years. Certainly the entirety of my adulthood and I'm nearly 30.

The issue is how to enforce granular rules like that. You'll end up with people buying time shares of airbnbs or some other wacky workaround. The issue ultimately is, if you leave any wiggle room, grifters will ruin it for the people using that wiggle room as intended. You can't put in a law and expect everyone to adhere to the spirit of said law. I think with the litany of other property value issues that NY has, this hard line in the sand makes sense. It sucks that the grifters ruined it for people like you and I but the fact of the matter is that they did.

That's assuming I have $237 laying around to play a game id also need to spend $70 on.

It's finally happened ... my 1070 is finally below minimum requirements for a game I want to play. Guess this will be an Xbox only game for me because I am not paying the insane prices for GPUs.

Statistics of players being updated and new character models being added. Nothing that couldn't be done in an update. Honestly most sports games should literally just be games as a service already.

Alright, then I guess change the way you read a clock too... My day to day use doesn't include the year at all. Just mm/dd

Me too thanks