conciselyverbose @ conciselyverbose @sh.itjust.works

Posts

0

Comments

1,869

Joined

1 yr. ago

I'm usually on the "no, that girl who smiled at you because she's a friendly person didn't lead you on" side, but you bought a bed together and do sex stuff, even if you haven't had actual sex...

That doesn't mean you owe them forever, or even now, but you're a big part of the reason for their emotions here.

Start by broaching the separate beds, IMO. Then give a little time before dating, if you want to minimize pain.

I'm really liking the evolution of Shallan Davar in the Stormlight Archives at the moment.

If they have parental controls, I definitely agree they're doing a sizable chunk of their job right there. I just thought it was worth mentioning as it wasn't part of your "doing everything you can do" bit.

Not saying if they do or don't, but if you're going to target kids, extremely robust parental controls should also be obligatory.

The problem is SEO.

You can't just use keywords anymore because every site out there is actively exploiting that system. Being the search engine everyone uses inherently means everyone will try to cheat to be overrepresented. It's an adversarial system now, which forces an arms race between the search engine and web sites, meaning a search engine has to constantly evolve to stay ahead.

They've failed to do that and I definitely don't like the end product now, but there's nothing they can do to be what they were 10 years ago either. The web has changed.

Did people think that not connecting to a network was a magic technique that prevented infections from being spread on USB drives if you move them back and forth?

Controlling what happens on your systems is not anti-competitive. You can't just re-define words to mean something that's the exact opposite of what they are. The locked down system of Apple and consoles is their biggest value add. It's not "something I tolerate to buy an iPhone". It's why I buy an iPhone. They make so much money because their control of their own product makes it better. There is no such thing as a "monopoly" on your own hardware. It's literally impossible.

Google is a monopoly because they are controlling the behavior of competitors with their market position. That is always a monopoly. Controlling your own product never is.

It has nothing to do with the OS. It's for the play store. But again, a limitation of the OS would be something that the OS can't do, not the OS just refusing to allow hardware for business reasons.

Your opinion on rational is just as flawed. People should be able to make their own products. It's specifically pretending to be open to form a standard that multiple independent companies join in on, then unilaterally controlling that standard to make decisions for the entire market that's abusive.

There are many companies that do what Apple does and run closed operating systems on their own hardware. Apple built their market share on the strength of their walled garden providing an excellent development environment. It's not what a monopoly is. Controlling the behavior of hundreds of competing products is a monopoly.

You have to manually enable the play store on all of those devices. It's why they're so niche and only made by Chinese companies.

It's not in any way a limitation of the OS. It's a business decision that is using their market position as the only source of most Android apps in order to control what manufacturers are able to make and sell.

And again, your core concept isn't just flawed. It completely lacks understanding of what antitrust is. You can make decisions that only affect your own hardware. You cannot claim to be open and use that "openness" to make yourself the standard, then use that market position to pick winners and losers between your "partners" using that product, especially when you're also one of them. That's anticompetitive. Google wants all the benefits of being "open" while completely dictating the entire market.

The play store is their monopoly that they abuse. There's a refresh rate requirement to distribute your device with the play store.

Otherwise, the user has to go to a Google website page from the device, sign into a Google account, and copy paste serial information of the device in order to be allowed to install the store. That's not something normal customers can do, and it massively impeded the growth of the Android reader space.

One example (of many) where their requirements have directly impacted the growth of a market is refresh rate. Android ereaders are excellent devices, but because of Google's arbitrary limitations, devices until recently (when the technology they impeded with their monopoly developed far enough to meet that restriction) were forced to require users to jump through multiple extremely convoluted hoops to enable the play store.

This made them almost entirely inaccessible to normal end users and almost certainly played a huge role in the availability of options. That's textbook anticompetitive.

It's not the only restriction, just the first to come to mind.

That's incorrect. There are multiple requirements, both hardware and software, to be able to ship with the play store. That's the monopoly they're abusing, and that's what Epic is suing for.

Legally, yes. Dictating the rules for software on your own hardware is entirely legal, and extremely common.

Using your market position to dictate a cabal of other manufacturers' rules on their hardware is anticompetitive. They're using their market dominance with the play store to mandate a variety of hardware decisions and software decisions.

Anything is "possible". Forecasts of the future can't be 100%. But not everything is plausible. If you round to 100 significant figures, the probability of the sun rising tomorrow is 100%. You'll never get to true 100%, past, present, or future. Even after watching something with your own eyes and watching the video documentation 100 times over. It's "possible" someone faked the video, and eyewitness testimony is known to be incredibly bad evidence for a reason.

Knowledge is strongly backed by evidence. Belief ranges from "the evidence is inconclusive/not strong enough/doesn't exist" to "the evidence can't exist".

Because of their market dominance. That's what antitrust laws are about.

The fact that it's not just their own hardware completely changes the legal arguments in play.

I love crown black. It's definitely the cheapest I can buy without feeling gross the next day after a couple drinks.

Apple isn't on third party hardware.

They aren't controlling access to software on other manufacturers devices like Google is.

Can you lock it so only you can upload?

It sounds like a useful way to share stuff with friends, but not if any random person can upload stuff.

They need to know to be capable of living their life.

It is literally impossible to make intelligent decisions about their future health without all the information available. Willful ignorance is not a valid position, and health care professionals aren't permitted to allow you to make decisions without knowing everything you need to know for a reason.

And again, by definition, you cannot be qualified to make the choice until you know what the information you're asking to be withheld is, because that information is required to make a rational decision.

Why would that bother them? They charge vendors for chargebacks.