gila @ gila @lemm.ee

Posts

0

Comments

354

Joined

2 yr. ago

Why can't they remain solvent by adjusting their fee schedule though? It's the same boilerplate terms other engines seem to make ends meet with. There are many different ways to correct course in the scenario presented, but the action taken doesn't suggest that's the scenario they're in. Corporate profit-seeking is the primary driver of the inflation in the global economy - I think the above commenter has put the cart before the horse.

This would make sense if Unity increased their fees, but it doesn't make sense to invent a new revenue stream based on a metric you can't even accurately measure. That's profit-seeking.

And then bundled it with a 5W charger?

I recall the same issue on the cables for my old 30-pin connector, and Apple earbuds / in-ear headphones. Don't think it's related to Lightning, just Apple cables

There isn't necessarily a USB standard to compare with to that end, as type C supports a wide range of standards. Compared to lightning, both iPhone 14 and 15 seem to offer up to 20W charging with the wall adapter sold separately. So again, no improvement where it could most likely be provided easily (e.g. like any other phone manufacturer has), but charging rate isn't solely determined by the port/cable in the same way as data, there's ample room for Apple to argue that the charging is slower on the base model for some other reason related to production cost vs. Pro

Nothing to do with the cable, the port on the device is a USB-C port that is limited to USB2.0 speeds. Whereas the iPhone Pro has one that can do USB3.0 speeds. This seems to have been recently verified by the tech specs on Apple website btw

The financial impact of this decision is entirely speculative at this stage. Unity's next quarterly earnings report won't be impacted by it. The market is attempting to price in losses that haven't yet occurred. We won't know how it affects stock price for awhile

It's the ports, they force USB2.0 speeds (same as lightning) unless you get the Pro (this is unverified)

They're separate problems, linked mostly in terms of humans being a cause of both. With CFCs/HCFCs now phased out, the ozone layer is slowly repairing itself and should be back to pre-1980 levels in the next 30-40 years or so. This will be good for helping to prevent skin cancer, and it will marginally affect the climate (e.g. lower ozone is associated with lower humidity), but it's not going to do much to mitigate global warming.

The notification center is useless, if I have an app-specific notification then it's highlighted in my taskbar anyway. All of the inline ads are delivered through notifications, so just turn off notification center in registry and the problem is solved. Same for removing edit with clipchamp from context menus. Tbh I'm not super against them bringing attention to their 1st party apps because things like the Photos app happen occasionally and that was an objective improvement for OS-bundled photo software. The problem is that Clipchamp sucks ass

They were eligible for a brand new phone after 24 months if they recontracted for another 24 months. If they decided to unsubscribe during months 25-48, they'd be on the hook for the remaining cost of the phone. I mention this because at least for where I am, this is the default position - this decision would just mean the user needs to get their brand new phone on a contractual repayment from a provider other than Google.

I think it's because of the original marketing for Pixel Pass. Google marketed it as being better value than other post-paid mobile phone plan arrangements in some way. It's just the same boilerplate terms under which a large proportion of mobile phones have been sold for decades in my country - so it was confusing when Google tried to sell me "a new way to buy a phone" where literally the only new thing about it was that you can get discounted Google services bundled. I wouldn't be surprised if people are getting pissed off about it now for not receiving value that was never actually offered.

There are employment rules though, right? Aside from wage disputes I mean, which in terms of law are more related to contract execution than employment rules. For cases specifically to do with employment rules, who enforces the rule? In other rich western countries exist entities like Employment New Zealand and Fair Work Australia to manage this as a primary function. The US doesn't have one.

The DoL doesn't have anything to do with unfair dismissal such as is reported in this case. In fact, a large proportion of US work contracts explicitly allow the employer to terminate the contract for any reason with no notice.

They have employment rules, but I believe as they employee your main recourse would be to sue them. They don't have a government entity like Employment New Zealand to hold the employer to account on the employee's behalf.

It's a company whose primary business model is selling carbon credits. How could anyone even imagine that they have anything but unfair employment practices? They exist to exploit

I think it's just learned over time spent engaging with faces of that ethnicity. For myself as a white person located much closer to Asia than South America, I can identify someone's specific Asian ethnicity with fairly good accuracy, although there's always curveballs like Chinese people that aren't Han Chinese. But I'd have a lot of trouble identifying the same for people from different South American countries, because it's a lot farther away and there's only a few South American people that I've come to know well in my travels. I think it comes down to understanding that the ways faces vary are different between different ethnicities. Stereotypes result from not understanding this. You could possible 'train' yourself on Asian faces by reading into the ways they vary, but I think internalising it comes mostly from experience.