- Joined: Aug 28, 2018
- Last Login: May 8, 2022, 7:32pm EDT
- Comments: 1,793
Share this profile
Comment 3 recs
Someone advertising it probably leads to more purchases than if it’s just a checkbox on an online order.
Exactly. Just take 10 minutes to eavesdrop in on any Apple Store in the world. You will hear clueless users being upsold products or upgrades they don’t necessarily need (especially storage, RAM, and accessories) and buying them enthusiastically. The Apple Store has some of the most effective salespeople out there.
It’s also worth remembering that Apple Stores have the highest per square foot sales of pretty much any retailer. To such an extent that they get lucrative discounts on mall space because they are an "anchor" tenant that draws in buyers to other stores.
Comment 3 recs
Good luck to these brave organizers!
A company that makes $25 billion in profits can afford to pay their retail workers fairly. (And no, the existing wage of $18-21 is NOT an acceptable number in New York City. It’s a near-poverty wage.)
Comment 2 replies
The many-headed Hydreigon that is Android would be so much more appealing as a platform if it had the consistency and polish of iOS. Pointless forks like FireOS (which exist only to sell Amazon products, at considerable expense to the user experience) are a shame. The feel of vanilla Android on a Pixel device is so greatly superior.
I know, it’s a natural consequence of an open source project, but it still bothers me.
I’m not sure how many times this point needs to be made but let me try again:
1. Twitter is a private corporation. It is not subject to the restrictions of the First Amendment, which applies only to the government.
2. Twitter is allowed to censor anything it wants for any reason it wants. It does not have to provide an explanation of what was censored or why.
3. Twitter is also allowed to be as biased as it wants (as long as it does not violate non-discrimination laws, which protect race, gender, and many other categories, but generally not political viewpoint).
Something tells me you’re not going to mention the fact that Tucker Carlson asked Hunter Biden to get his son into Georgetown. Which also tells me you’re not particularly interested in the truth.
Wait, so you’re going to deny that Texas has a law banning virtually all abortions? Sounds like you’re, well, exaggerating to prove a point.
Comment 2 replies, 1 rec
Scam isn’t the right word to apply to an investment with its value tied to the market. That’s like saying it was a scam to buy Apple at $170 because it’s gone down to $130, and you wish you bought it at the cheaper price.
We may decide to describe certain people’s actions as scammy, but at the end of the day individual investors risked their money on a speculative asset that did not turn out. Many people lost money on GameStop but they unfortunately didn’t have recourse to sue r/wallstreetbets.
All investments of this nature (which includes the stock market!) are 100% speculative. Meaning you can lose 100% of the money you put in.
There is a reason they put that fine print on any investment asset. Read it carefully.
Comment 2 replies, 4 recs
I feel bad for all the regular people tricked into buying this. zai think it goes to show that anything with a 20% return is inherently EXTREMELY risky and should be viewed as such. Sadly, the people backing this hyped it up to all extremes.
Comment 1 rec
Sounds like Texas is going to have a lot of child abuse content, hate speech, and violent threats on its interwebs!
(Yes, I know that certain speech is not protected by law, but try telling that to the people who are going to be abusing this law).
Comment 1 reply, 1 rec
That’s a disingenuous response. Musk is quite literally hijacking one of the biggest platforms for discussion and debate to serve his own ends. He also has over $200 billion at his disposal. That means he has many, many thousands of times more leverage than you or I do. What he wants, he can buy.
And your response to that takeover of a vital communication network is for random people to start their own social network that gets zero reach? How well did that work for Truth Social?
You bring up a fascinating possibility, which is to shadowban troublesome users and/or content by not allowing their content to show up in feeds. Twitter did this with trump. However, that stills allows the giant loophole of people directly accessing their profile page, which is why a permaban is necessary and appropriate in certain circumstances (such as trump).