![](/static/253f0d9b/assets/icons/icon-96x96.png)
![](https://fry.gs/pictrs/image/c6832070-8625-4688-b9e5-5d519541e092.png)
Utah is gorgeous.
There are definitely parts of Socal that are ugly. Also parts that are sublime.
Utah is gorgeous.
There are definitely parts of Socal that are ugly. Also parts that are sublime.
Try visiting a not ugly state like California.
But how does that help capitalists make more money by eliminating their competition?
Nah I wasn’t being sarcastic.
As I understand it, in engineering these types of mobile space constrained devices you essentially have a “budget” of space. Every hardware feature you include generally eats into this budget and if you want things to be user accessible or repairable it eats into this budget majorly.
That budget has to come from somewhere, so you can pay it with things like reducing the size of your battery or reducing the size of your drivers which in turn represents a reduction in sound quality.
This article seems to omit the most important fact about headphones - how do they sound?
I love repairability and all, but it hardly matters if I don’t want to use them in the first place because they traded off too much quality for repairability.
If you’re in the USA it seems clearly better to have Russian since they can do much less to affect your life and vice versa.
That’s what I thought about the elephant tusk looking AirPods yet here we are.
The Reality Distortion Field sometimes makes things hard to predict when it comes to Apple products.
Apple’s customers bought their iPhone knowing alternative stores are not available.
Your perspective seems to be to ignore the very existence of anti trust rules that stand for the proposition that even if the customer knows what they’re getting in a free market capitalist transaction it can be illegal.
Can’t your justification of Apple be used for every anti trust case? “AT&T’s customers bought their service knowing alternative rotary dial telephones manufactured by 3rd parties are not available.”
So IP law for individuals = bad, but IP law for corporations = good is the general argument here?
Is there a principled basis for this argument?
It seems like a lot of art like musicians or novelists rely almost entirely on earnings from selling their works to individuals. Wouldn’t a legal regime like you’re advocating basically make producing art for real people a lot less lucrative comparatively and drive those artists into making corporate art and marketing materials?
So what you’re saying is this episode has caused you/others here on /c/piracy to rethink your prior beliefs, and now you see some value in the copyright legal regime?
Conveniently, these moral arguments that are freed from the confines of discrete logic also allow people on /c/piracy to ignore the rules when justifying their own piracy, and still condemn others they already happen to dislike when they do piracy.
Lemmy sure loves copyright and intellectual property once you change who the pirate is.
All the giant real estate investments companies have made is now coming due and they cant fill up their buildings fast enough to get those tax breaks
What are these tax breaks for filling up buildings?
Wow! More conservative projection accusing others of something they themselves are doing. Weird!!
Modern?
Has it increased in some way over time? I think men not wanting to wear condoms because of how they feel is a tale as old as the condom itself.
Amount of time before ban citing vague security risks like car technology could somehow be used by the military…3, 2, 1…
Of course, not roads only, the USA is still terrible and China and India are still not on the list.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/270508/co2-emissions-per-capita-by-country/