smokingManhole @ smokingManhole @lemmy.world

Posts

3

Comments

33

Joined

2 yr. ago

I partially agree. They created a monopoly because they offer the best search engine service. You can't be accused of making a monopoly if your competition is embarrassingly bad and no one wants to use any service but yours.

What they are doing now, regardless of how they gained this monopoly, is ensuring that every cow that feeds on the grass of their field yields profitable milk.

They are still going to pursue it, just under a different name and rolling-out timeline. What they changed is only the way they are announcing it publicly.

It's going to be "DRM for the Web, but with extra steps".

The timing couldn’t be better. For me, the only thing missing from Firefox for Android (or, even better, Mull) was a translation feature; otherwise, it was perfect. The lack of translation was the only reason I found myself opening the Chrome app, and I am eagerly looking forward to no longer needing it.

I was once a fervent supporter of Google, but now see it moving towards Apple's approach. This shift doesn't feel like the result of malicious intent on the part of Google’s engineers, but rather a change driven by non-technical roles (business, marketing, ...) aiming to boost revenue margins. When these roles lead a company's direction, you can already hear the ticking clock of its fate.

He doesn't identify as old.

The demo is showing some cherry-picked examples, but it is definitely on a good track. I can't wait to see future releases with more consistency.

I'll stop using Internet before I even consider whitelisting YouTube.

AI writes better than that.

Okay, then let's hypothetically say Israel forms a terrorist organization that doesn’t overlap with the Israeli government itself, would they then have the right to attack Gaza? This organization would essentially be in the same position relative to Israel as Hamas is to the Palestinians.

The way you debate reminds me of someone who might have abandoned their education prematurely. Are you going to complain to the teacher because you cannot acknowledge that your reasoning is flawed, incomplete, and biased? Your approach to this discussion is quite frankly, absurd.

Your narrative would hold if it weren't flawed; it's an oversimplification. Let's take your perspective where Hamas is the bees that stung Israel, and now Israel is retaliating against the land harboring the bee nest. (I use 'bees' here to distinguish from my earlier wasp analogy).

If your neighbor disliked the bees as much as you and agreed the nest was a problem, then certainly, destroying it with care to avoid collateral damage would be wise. However, the situation changes if your neighbor is a beekeeper who shields the bees in his home to protect them from you. If those bees become aggressive and harm your family, naturally, you'd first request the neighbor to remove the bees. Should they refuse, you'd have every right to seek external help. But what if the authorities do little, leaving you to suffer the stings while your neighbor faces minimal consequences? Rather than passively endure this, you might feel compelled to act independently to prevent future stings and deter the beekeeper from maintaining this threat.

Are you focusing solely on the casualties involving children? Does that mean any location with children is off-limits for retaliation, providing a shield for adversaries because children are present? This is not a simple game of hide and seek, nor is it your idealistic world where a slap is met with a turned cheek.

It's a common misconception that supporters of Israel are indifferent to the death of children or any civilian, for that matter, and you seem to be perpetuating this narrative. You choose the most objectionable point about an opponent to make an accusation, and, much like someone obstinately arguing without listening to reason, you consider yourself morally superior and in the right.

What, in your opinion, would be a suitable response to an attack from Hamas? Would peaceful protests, international condemnation, or sanctions suffice?

If you've discarded your spine, don't assume everyone else has done the same. An entity without the ability to react appropriately can only succumb.

Play stupid games, win stupid prizes.

What did you expect? Do you think that hitting a wasp nest with a rod just once means you'll only be stung once because you only hit it once? There's no rule stating that the wasps must respond with equal magnitude. If people are now getting hurt, it's because someone provoked the wasps. The notion that reactions must be proportionate to the offense is quite naive.