A lot of companies have been trying to sue them and are trying to tarnish their name in any way possible because their case is already shaky at best. The whole "monopoly" thing despite competition existing and Valve only being on top because they're the best feature wise stuff.
That's just a name we give to "a share of a well-known, profitable, and established company with a history of success". I.e. "companies that experience constant and consistent growth". That's literally what OP is criticizing. They do the same things. Microsoft is a blue chip. You think they don't have layoffs to appease shareholders? Google? Apple?
That's your energy right there. Came in here hoping for actual answers and this trash comment is top. Pure speculation from someone on the opposite side.
Remind me again how many local news stations are owned by ClearChannel again? Do you not remember the video showing local morning broadcasts from around the country and them all being the exact same script repeated verbatim?
No, no we don't have a wide swath of sources. We have many disguised as independent, but the sad fact is, few are.
The same Secret Service who left one of the only buildings in the area unsecured? Who when told there was a shooter by the crowd, ignored them? Making a lot of assumptions about competency here when that's already directly in question.
Dude, you can literally Google it. There's dozens of articles and talking points suggesting a handful of names. It's right there. Just because you don't see it doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
It's becoming really fucking clear just how much of an echochamber the Dems also live in while simultaneously mocking Trumpers for being in theirs.
"I'm voting for X, even if he's in a coma" is the exact kind of cult rhetoric you mock Trumpers for following. You're blindly following a leader because "he's going to save us" and willingly dismissing any criticisms, just shoving your fingers in your ears and going "LA LA LA LA LA I CANT HEAR YOU". Oh, and calling anyone who disagrees a Russian/Trump shill.
Fuck the US Democrats. Progressives in name only. They had their chance and they failed miserably. Time for a new party to step up. We need an actual left party, not a "less right than the extreme" one.
Because people liked the feature. Look, I'm just saying WHY they added windows. That was the reason. I'm not saying it's a good reason or no one could figure things out before. They added them for that reason, people liked it, and it stuck around. Yet, there's always gonna be someone dragging out their 30 year old washer going "but mine is fine!". Never said it wasn't. Or someone pointing out that not all washers have a window even today. Cool. Nifty. But if yours does have one, that was the reason they got added.
Congrats on having an ancient machine with no variable timing that finishes early and being able to look in tells you what step it's on easily at a glance instead of staring at your worn away knob. Good for you. Was it relevant at all to the discussion about why they added windows to machines that do?
Because people liked the feature. Look, I'm just saying WHY they added windows. That was the reason. I'm not saying it's a good reason or no one could figure things out before. They added them for that reason, people liked it, and it stuck around. Yet, there's always gonna be someone dragging out their 30 year old washer going "but mine is fine!". Never said it wasn't. Or someone pointing out that not all washers have a window even today. Cool. Nifty. But if yours does have one, that was the reason they got added.
To check the progress before electric displays and fancy indicator lights. Windows came before those upgrades when machines were still dial controlled.
So then you buy the unlocked version, just like the person said. This applies more to people leasing it who are locked in, like they said. Do you not have any reading comprehension?
And look at all the other dates others are giving me. They're not the same as yours. THATS my point. No one actually agrees on the dates and at this point, it's expanded to include other generations.
Yet I have 10 different people spouting different dates and all telling me I'm wrong. None of you see that you're the exact point I was making. Everyone tries to shove in some extra years before or after.
Thank you, someone who gets it. The definition has expanded so much it's essentially meaningless now.
When I grew up and the term was first coined, it refered to the generation coming after mine. It was literally "what will we call this next generation? Well, they're growing up during the turn of the millennium....". Then suddenly years later it included my generation. Then suddenly it includes the generation before me? When really it's just a lazy replacement for "kids these days".
You're further proving my point. A person born in 1981 would be 18 years old in 1999. They will have had NONE of their childhood during the Millennium(unless you're counting the very end of it)
Because every other "generation" is about 10 years and yet somehow "Millennials" are an almost 25 year gap. Notice how it's "Older Millennial, younger millennial, etc". You don't use those qualifiers with the other generations because they are appropriately sized.
Millennials should be 2-3 named generations. It currently refers to 80's kids, 90s kids, any kids alive when 2000 happened, and early Aughts kids(probably because the last name sucked and no one wanted to use it). Too many generations wanted the claim of "I was the first generation of the new millennium" and everyone co-opted the term even when it didn't traditionally apply(newborns because they were closest to the date as opposed to when their major development occured is part of that stretch)
fishos @ fishos @lemmy.world Posts 0Comments 699Joined 2 yr. ago
A lot of companies have been trying to sue them and are trying to tarnish their name in any way possible because their case is already shaky at best. The whole "monopoly" thing despite competition existing and Valve only being on top because they're the best feature wise stuff.