Hmm…
So I only use Brave for YouTube. I definitely won’t be recommending it, but I’m torn between whether I’m being a leech of ad-free user generating what should be near zero revenue or if I’m being valuable as a number to ad to user counts.
Aldi’s Clancy’s chips. Name brand are just too greasy for me. Also, I just tried their garlic bread chips and those are dangerous.
Came here to say The Locked Tomb is FANTASTIC meme humor and so witty in almost every way. However it’s a series that I’m convinced I’ll never actually understand. I’m on Nona now and things are barely better. Harrow had me second guessing every fact and almost pulling out a cork board, pins, and string to just understand when what happened to whom.
One of my favorite new series, though. And it’s been a delight to buddy read with my wife.
That’s definitely my hope.
It’s less the repaired retail market (which they control on Amazon at least) and more the “I could repair this for cheaper than half of a new phone” lost sales. They’ve been quietly letting that group slip by for years of progressively more expensive to “repair” (read, “swap modules”) while people who could get a basic repair done for cheap are pushed to buy new phones instead.
What are the holes that can be poked into this as written? I firmly believe Apple is still against repair that would eat into their new sales. So where does this, as written, give them the room to keep that going?
Is it just that they can continue to make their “screen issue = replace whole top shell of laptop” and similar the default and draw the line there, standardizing high-cost repairs even if it’s just a wire or small component replacement? If they don’t allow ANY standard repairs more granular than swap module for module, they don’t have to provide more granular resources than that. I’m not fully up on what repairs Apple authorizes.
This is definitely a win to some degree, though. But when your opponent goes to your side and draws a line, that always gives me the chills.
That makes a lot of sense! And it’s possible I shared some early super long image issues that resulted in the image size cap. I look forward to watching the process. You guys are doing great work.
I’m sampling lots of different apps and have noticed that, while I prefer a massive chunk of Mlem’s features and style, I often find myself using others like Memmy because they have an option for images to show the whole image while scrolling rather than merely a square preview of it.
I get lots of cut off heads, spoiled meme punchlines, and just all around unclear content while scrolling on Mlem due to this missing option. I absolutely see a rationale or two for it, both on the side of an app encouraging engagement and user preference, so I was curious if:
A. I’m missing something and didn’t have any reason to cheat on my beloved Mlem for unspoiled memes, or B. There are any plans for this as an option in the future.
I’m pleased to see the existing advancements with image viewing, though! And so much else! Thanks for all your hard work!
So, ignoring the fees involved in making it happen at all (which I assume the person did, because wow.) Say they spend ⅓ the price of the car to get ⅔ again as much use out of it. That’s a profit. They’re probably looking at replacing the car and not the battery when thinking about it, so it’s really good then. And they probably assume the device is transferable, so they can get more than one use out of the investment.
So they’re selling themselves on almost 2x performance that they can apply to all future batteries or cars and thus they extend the life of each car in the fleet by a lot.
And if it’s doesn’t live up to the claims, they pay ‘nothing’ and reap any benefits they managed to get out of it. And SURELY it would give at least SOME benefit, right?!
It’s absolutely stupid and foolish, but it’s not one single thing that makes it stupid or foolish, it’s a cascade of assumptions and estimations that makes something stupid sound plausible. There’s a world where the person “logic-ed” their way into buying this scheme—and either way it was a scheme—that was sold to them as no-lose.
They just had to forget all the other associated costs. The real world is probably either that they were completely incompetent and bought “battery rejuvenation technology” or that they tried to payout to a buddy and were had.
There’s a reality here where someone saw this as a no-lose situation. Either:
A. We get some improvement, but it doesn’t reach their claims so we don’t go forward.
Or
B. We get the promised improvement and it’s actually worth it.
They missed a few obvious issues in that the cars may become safe or get worse longevity from the experiment. That and the contract process took time and money if they had a reasonable expectation of failure.
Still, it’s not entirely stupid and so long as Mullen got NOTHING besides a scam record, this could be a win.
I’ll be your third upvote. For less than 3.
So when do you think they’ll apply “If any, then none” logic to corporate lobbying, campaign finances, …guns?
Never? Oh, really then.
The suffering is the point.