napoleonsdumbcousin

Just today there was a great comment by @Voroxpete@sh.itjust.works on why this does not make any sense.

1. When you factor in the incredible damage done to the Tesla share price by the amount of stock he had to liquidate to finance the deal, and the almost billion a year in interest and operating costs the company is pulling out of him, the deal has, altogether, cost Musk about half of his net worth. No amount of petty childishness is worth that.

2. He literally went to court to try to get out of the deal. What was his play here? To sue with the intention of failing? For what possible reason?
3. If his plan was to kill Twitter, why would he attach his beloved X name to it? Musk has spent his entire life trying to make X happen. It is dearer to him than his own children. Why would he attach that brand to a company he’s intentionally sabotaging?
4. If his goal is to kill Twitter, why is it still here? He owns the company outright. He took it private. There’s no board. There’s no shareholders. He doesn’t have a fiduciary responsibility. If he wanted Twitter dead, all he had to do was shut the doors, turn off the lights, and send everyone home.

Anyone who buys into this “He’s trying to kill Twitter” nonsense, please, I am begging you, try to get your head around the fact that Elon Musk is not a smart man. This isn’t some incredible 4D chess play. Twitter isn’t failing because of intentional sabotage; it’s failing because Musk is genuinely trying his best, and his best absolutely sucks. He’s a bad businessman who lucked into a fortune he never deserved.

https://sh.itjust.works/comment/4855307

Don't need an additional thing by law. 😑

You still don't need it if you don't spy on your users. Cookie banners are not required. Asking for consent before collecting data that goes beyond the necessary minimum is required.

I spent the last half an hour trying to find anything related to different intelligence levels of male and female cats.

I did not find anything.

Male cats tend to be more playful and affectionate, but there is no difference in intelligence.

I don't think the article is trying to claim that labor exploitation is new.

This part directly admits that it is a very old phenomenon:

It’s been noted, and correctly so, that entertainment industry labor disputes often erupt when there’s a change in technology — from theaters screening projected films to the cathode ray tube of the home television, say, or the rise of YouTube and other online content in the 2000s — and that happens for a reason. Historically, executives and management use a disorienting new technology to try to justify lowering wages of their workers, and they have done so since the days of the Industrial Revolution.

As I understood it, the article just wants to explain why this is happening now, because historically it seems to happen in waves.

Your comment is only technically correct, so I am gonna add to that:

Alfred Nobel did invent dynamite and was also a believer in mutually assured destruction, BUT: those two facts are not directly connected.

Dynamite in itself was not intended for warfare, but for mining. It was still relatively unstable so not really suited for warfare. (TNT, which came around 1900, solved that problem.)

Nobel did invent smokeless powder for warfare and he transformed Bofors into an arms manufacturing company though.

https://www.nobelprize.org/alfred-nobel/alfred-nobels-thoughts-about-war-and-peace/

They did in fact do that in the English translation of some Arabic bios:

He had written in his bio that he was Palestinian, followed by a Palestinian flag and the word "alhamdulillah" in Arabic - which translates to "praise be to God" in English. However, upon clicking "see translation", viewers were given an English translation reading: "Praise be to God, Palestinian terrorists are fighting for their freedom".

The linked article in this post is a cut down version of the original BBC article below, except it somehow lost all of the important content in the process: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-67169228

First: fuck Israel's Genocide in Gaza.

Second: this article is extremely biased, to the point that it is basically misinformation. The people they are talking about are Yasemin Acar and Salah Said, infamous protesters in Berlin. Here is a translated part of a german newspaper, video evidence is linked in the article:

Speaking at a demonstration in January, she literally threatened: "If violence is the only option, we will use it." She then celebrated the attacks by the Islamist Houthi militia: "Yemen, Yemen we are proud, turn another ship around."

https://www.tagesspiegel.de/gesellschaft/die-stimme-des-israelhasses-wenn-gewalt-die-einzige-option-ist-werden-wir-sie-anwenden-11284348.html

Of course the police is searching the homes of people that threaten violence themselves and encourage terrorist attacks on civilian ships.

This game never was verified. It was playable despite being unsupported, which it is not anymore.

urning off GPS and LTE ruins 90% of the features in the car.

The main purpose of a car is "driving", which you can do. Unless you cannot start a Tesla without LTE, which would be very stupid.

You can also always strip a car for parts. Teslas are not magically safe from that.

I have a genuine question that maybe somebody with more economic knowledge can educate me in:

How is continuing the sale in Russia helping Russia? As I understand Russia is gaining money on the sales taxes, etc. but the rest of the earnings will go to the US parent company, which cannot be taxed directly by Russia. If Pepsi backs out, wouldn't operations just be replaced by a rebranded russian company, where all of the earnings would be under russian "sphere of influence"?

I genuinely do not understand why Pepsi backing out is considered bad for Russia. I thought countries generally prefer national companies over foreign ones.

I read in another article that it is just supposed to be a first test of the feature before the global rollout.

Sadly they have not issued them yet. The prosecutor recently requested them and the court has yet to decide.

The "increase in crime" is only really there if you compare today to the unusually low pandemic numbers. In general, we are just back to the normal (higher) pre-pandemic crime rates.

Maybe, but not without startup investment and knowledge. All of that isn't free, and if an economy is unstable, no-one is going to commit money into it.

At least the knowledge is already there. Pepsi is not going to take the workers in Russia away with them. And as far as I know the investment is mostly the cost of buying the assets from the western company. For example the russian McDonalds branch just reopened with a new name at the same locations.

If they imported some ingredients before and then had to switch to local suppliers after the pullout ... doesn't this also benefit Russia, since now all of the production is national and they require less imports?

It is not like making food or soft drinks is really high tech. At worst, it is just going to taste a bit different if the ingredients are different. Or other, already local companies might gain market share.

I think most country's police would be pulling out warrants to search your house when you're advocating for violent terrorism.

I would certainly hope so

That depends on where you live. Every ecosystem is different.

Australia or USA? Yes thats bad.

Central Europe? Not so much.

My question was more specific than that. I absolutely understand why it is important to sanction high-tech products and stop Russia from exporting their goods.

But western companies selling non-critical goods inside Russia felt more like russian economic dependancy to western companies to me, which (for me as a layman when it comes to economy) seemed preferable to Russia having an independent economy. Thats where my question came from.

Now I realized that rather than "dependant economy" or "independant economy" the intended goal in this case is "no economy", although i am doubtful whether that will really work.

You are comparing the old simple "Remove Ads" option to Sync Ultra features.

The new "Remove Ads" without additional features costs 14,99 €. Which, yes, is more expensive than before, but that was to be expected. The old price would have been way too cheap for today's pricing situation, especially since he also lost most of his userbase.

It is already implemented in the newest update

I literally just explained why the price per person needs to be higher now. It is not about server costs. It is about the cost of app development and maintenance.

Good point. Thanks for your insights.

The source is NABU = "Nature and Biodiversity Conservation Union" (the largest non-profit nature conservation organization in Germany)

Translated from german:

But you have to look at the overall picture: only in human settlement areas are cats a serious factor that can partially lead to a decline in bird populations. But in fact, bird populations are increasing there, while they are decreasing especially in agricultural landscapes, but also in forests. Blaming these declines on cats would be far too simplistic. The greatest threat to biodiversity is and remains the progressive degradation of habitats by humans.

https://www.nabu.de/tiere-und-pflanzen/voegel/gefaehrdungen/katzen/15537.html

They recommend castration to limit the cross-breeding of house cats with wild cats, but see no general problem in free-roaming house cats.

Of course a single user is irrelevant, but in principle and if it would evolve into a larger trend: yes. At least if the dev wants to keep paying his bills. That is how business works. And with lower user counts at some point the required price per user would be too high to be competitive. Then the dev would have to abandon the project, since it would not be profitable anymore. He is a full-time developer after all.

The price was set many years ago and just never changed.

Also yes, less customers means less income for mostly the same amount of work. That is literally why bigger companies can offer cheaper prices. Scale.

AFAIK he just implemented regional pricing. The price is the same in Euro.

My point was also never that it has to be one specific price, but to raise awareness to the fact that the old prices of Sync for Reddit are not actually sustainable anymore for Lemmy.

It is not about how many animals a cat kills. The question is "how many kills are sustainable for the local animal population?". And that number will always be different depending on where you are. In North Africa cats are literally native animals and in Europe they have been held as free-roaming pets for thousands of years.

Big chunk of the funding is from the Saudis though - and they have a very vested interest in trashing twitter.

This does not address any of the points above though. The Saudis could have just bought it for half the money and closed the doors.

It’s also entirely possible the truth is somewhere in between - people who knew he couldn’t manage his way out a paper bag working ego boy into buying twitter and ketting the inevitable happen. He’s not exactly hard to manipulate.

Manipulate into doing what? Buying twitter? I think it is very likely that he just attempted market manipulation and failed. Now he is trying to make the best out of the situation and transform Twitter into the company he actually wants. Except he is absolutely incompetent. I don't see where anybody manipulated him into doing anything. Everything that happened seems very much like him.

One-time payment is already implemented. Update in the Play Store if you cannot see it. The "Remove Ads" button is below the settings.

That was in response to your comparison with t-shirts.

And yes, scaling does not work in the same way for app development. A large part of the required work for app development stays the same, regardless of how many actual users there are (excluding server costs (-> Sync Ultra) and probably the amount of support tickets). But since Sync has way less users now, there has to be more income per user for it to be profitable.

I can't speak for the rest of Europe, but in Germany there was a major reform in sexual assault laws in 2016. You cannot compare before and after at all, because the laws are much stricter now. Things that were not considered rape or sexual assault before, are now. I would assume the same happened elsewhere, too. In 2017 "Me Too" started, which also led to much more awareness on the subject, so more people report on it since then.

Violent crime in Germany, while being higher than in the last few years, is still lower now than in 2010 or any year before. https://de.statista.com/statistik/daten/studie/153880/umfrage/faelle-von-gewaltkriminalitaet/

Theft is roughly on the level of 2019 in Germany and way lower than 2016 and any year before that. Grand theft is lower than ever (excluding 2021).

Source: German Federal Criminal Police (page 36), https://www.bka.de/SharedDocs/Downloads/DE/Publikationen/PolizeilicheKriminalstatistik/2022/FachlicheBroschueren/IMK-Bericht.pdf?__blob=publicationFile&v=5