Some of them may be hardware related - any time I sign in to one of my TCL TV's with a Premium account, the first result in any search is always one marked Sponsored. It's gash, but it doesn't happen on any other of my devices than that TCL TV which makes me think it's some sort of vendor problem.
Either way, YouTube/Google/Alphabet/whoever won't give a fuck so if it's that bad, then vote with your wallet.
I'm just freestyling here and I'm sure someone with a professional experience or academic background in psychology can tear it up for arsepaper, but I wonder if it's an innate fear?
Like the uncanny valley with autonomous human-style robots or how AI generated pictures of faces are sending primitive recognition patterns haywire, I wonder if covering up half of the visual cues to recognise someone as friend or foe provokes an in-built negative reaction?
I mean, it's not rational, but then chucklefucks who complain about it don't do rational even if it's in their interest.
Absolutely agree with you - I think perhaps Kamala was too safe a pair of hands and didn't generate enough excitement - but then I'm too old for watching fancy headline grabbers (though Ed Davey's approach to Lib Dem vote grabbing at the GE this year was highly entertaining) so to me, a boring but competent candidate is good for me.
I suppose I only brough up her gender and his sexuality because they both share an "outlier" characteristic that Republicans in general aren't too fond of.
Speaking from across the pond, I think Pete would have been brilliant... but then that's hardly part of the job description any more is it? A breeze block with the ability to talk shit and grift would unfortunately be a far more electable candidate this year.
Plus, if electing a woman was too troublesome for people to handle, what would happen if they fielded one of the gays!!!?!??
It's a disgrace really. Either Pete or Kamala would have been a safe pair of hands.
Man I'm sorry to hear that. I'm not going to pretend to know how you feel or give you hollow "I understand" or "it's going to be okay" promises because I can't back them up, and yeah the next few months are going to be proper shit.
All I can tell you is that having known you for half a dozen paragraphs on a phone screen, I already care about you more than that bumbling punchable arse piece that is going to make life difficult for a couple of years, and I think it'd be super cool if you stayed around a while.
I can't promise you wonders, but I do hope you find your way.
I'm not sure where you're going with that comment but I'm going to interpret it in the least-charitable way possible and assume you're talking about suicide, and that ain't the path to take, friend. Reach out - that omnishambles of a cockwomble isn't worth it.
If you're talking about moving or leaving the country, then good luck with that too 👍
I don't think there is in terms of process, I think payment handlers just add a higher charge for processing credit card payments, which is why stingy retailers dislike them.
I'm assuming the 16 digit card number, start and expiry dates, and CVV are printed on the reverse - whereas it used to only have the CVV on the reverse and the rest of the details on the front.
What's stopping someone with a picture of the rear of the card visiting an online retailer and going wild with a picture of just one side of the card these days - aside from multi-factor authentication at the point of authorising the payment?
As entertaining as that is, it does raise the question - why do they put all of the details on the back now?
I thought one of the main reasons that the CVV was on the signature strip was so if a card was photocopied, photographed, or carbon copied (literally on carbon paper), then it was still less possible to clone the card.
Is "physical" cloning so small of a problem now that it's more beneficial to make fancy looking cards? Anyone in the industry able to shine a light?
More like Max Burnout amirite???
Poor soul.