Ah yes. The unintended consequences of mandated code coverage without reviewing the tests. If you can mock the shit out of the test conditions to always give you exactly the answer you want, what’s the point of the test?
It’s like being allowed to write your own final exam, and all you need to pass the exam is 90% correct on the questions you wrote for yourself.
It’s not the total number of clicks that matters. It’s the fact that several options (sleep, reboot, shut down) are the same final click and often a pixel or two away from each other.
claimed an objective opinion, and that supposed to have data and a study to back it
Not “someone”. Me. And I linked to the paper, which itself had many links to other studies backing up my claim. You essentially said “nuh uh, more sources” without providing any of your own. Your bad faith arguments don’t work here, go back to Xitter.
so let’s get the data and compare
Yes, let’s get the data. You first. You’re really good at telling other people to go get data and sources. Show us how it’s done.
My brother in christ, drones are all over that paper. Have you read an academic paper before? Do you know how to follow sources in papers? Tell you what, you go find some sources of your own and we can compare. Sitting back and saying “nuh uh” ain’t gonna do it. Put up or shut up.
Get a pellet gun and shoot them down. You’ll find out quickly who is doing it when they trespass on your property to retrieve their downed hardware.
Let’s go boys! Time to drop trou, get out your wallet, and pre-order the super platinum edition with a hilarious camo, useless rifle, and the day-1 DLC included.
Loan forgiveness without making education affordable going forward doesn’t solve the problem. It’s pulling up the ladder.
You’re 100% correct. But be careful, these folks don’t take kindly to shining a light on their hypocrisy. They signed their names to a legally-binding contract, spent the money, but now don’t like paying it back under the terms they agreed to.
College tuition is far too high. But without fixing the root cause, tuition loan forgiveness does nothing for everyone before and after, and it actually makes the whole problem worse.
Actually, I think I did, you just didn’t understand it.
No, you didn’t. And the drivel you just wrote still didn’t answer the question. At this point it’s clear that it’s intentional.
The problem with landlords as a class is that they exert complete control over a ‘property’ while having the least use of it.
Tell me you have no idea how property ownership works without telling me you have no idea how property ownership works.
I would really have to agree.
“No you”. Nice one. Good luck friend, this back and forth is pointless.
Whose profits? See my post above:
profit for who? Was the bank allowed to make a profit on the home loan? Was the insurance company allowed to make a profit on the policy? Could the maintenance and repair folks earn a profit on their services? Could the home remodeling companies make a profit if the home needed updating? Or is every person and entity involved in home ownership allowed to profit from the rental except the landlord?
If your answer is “anyone and any entity making a profit”, then that’s about two or three dozen different industries (including banks, insurance agencies, title companies, all kinds of home builders, repair folks, etc.). Regardless of my opinion on that argument, your problem isn’t with the landlord, it’s with a huge swatch of industries who are all tied to and profit from renting.
You still didn’t answer the question. So get rid of the landlords means what exactly? You realize there’s about two dozen or so industries whose entire commercial existence is tied to landlords and rental properties, right? Do we get rid of all of them? Or just some? Or just the landlord, who is one small cog in a very big capitalist renting wheel?
Everyone is so oddly and furiously fixated on the landlord as some sort of big bad, and therefore assert that getting rid of the landlord position entirely will just magically make everything awesome. It’s odd to observe otherwise intelligent people stop so outrageously short of the complete picture.
Are we talking about eliminating renting altogether?
I’ve asked this very question before on reddit in a genuine attempt to understand what alternative the anti-landlord crowd is advocating for. Aside from the onslaught of personal attacks on my character, the best I could decipher was some sort of system where a landlord could only rent at actual cost of their mortgage, taxes, insurance, maintenance, etc. No profit could be earned. I said no one would be a landlord for free, especially considering the risks of owning land (natural disasters not insured, market crash, etc).
Their “landlords shouldn’t profit off of renters” argument fell apart when I asked profit for who? Was the bank allowed to make a profit on the home loan? Was the insurance company allowed to make a profit on the policy? Could the maintenance and repair folks earn a profit on their services? Could the home remodeling companies make a profit if the home needed updating? Or is every person and entity involved in home ownership allowed to profit from the rental except the landlord? They stopped responding.
Here you dropped these: , . ; , . . , , , . , . , . .
Don’t trip on your way to go get some.
Yep. Drill down one level in a few control panel items and you’re back in win xp.
At the end of the day, Google’s paying them more for my views than if I were an ad-viewing user. So for ~$20/mo (for family plan), that’s much more financially viable for me than if I were to pay $1/mo to all 100+ creators I watch.
Are you trolling? It feels like you are. At no point in this thread is anyone saying you need to start paying more. If you’re paying $20/mo for premium, and you’re using an arbitrary amount of $1 as the donation minimum per creator, then why not just donate $1 to 20 different creators for each month? Then the next month, donate to the next 20 creators, then the next 20, and so on. Believe it or not, all of those creators still get paid more by your direct donations – even measured over several months – compared to the tiny fraction they’d get from that same money via your premium subscription.
It seems like you’re trying to argue some moral high ground of funding content you enjoy on youtube. That’s fine. But it takes about 10 seconds of critical thinking to find ways to do it where you pay the same, the creators get paid more, and google gets paid nothing.
As much as I would love to support all of those creators directly, it’s not a financially viable option for me.
No one’s suggesting you pay more than what you’re paying now. I simply suggested you pay them directly. Take whatever you’re paying per month/year to google directly, then divide that up and contribute directly to the creators of your choosing.
which is more than they’d get from me if I was adblocking their videos
Now you’re moving the goalposts. No one is arguing against the fact that content creators get some amount of money from ads and subscriptions. The argument was that donating to them directly is better / more revenue for the creators, since google doesn’t get a cut. You spend the same amount, the creators get paid more, google gets paid nothing.
It’s bizarre how you are such an apologist for google.
I need to figma resume and get out of here.