[-] [email protected] 6 points 7 hours ago

It also assumes that businesses won't do anything they think they can get away with if they think it will make a buck. Given just how many times that has happened, saying regulators will catch any attempts to sidestep those rules is fairly optimistic, in my opinion.

[-] [email protected] 4 points 4 days ago

She certainly won't blame climate change...

[-] [email protected] 1 points 5 days ago

I don't remove responsibility from the people, but don't pretend that companies don't spend piles of cash on marketing when it has absolutely no influence on their customers' purchasing decisions. Also, don't pretend that marketing isn't pandering to appeal and not function.

[-] [email protected] 3 points 5 days ago

You can buy a bottle of sparkling wine for $20.

[-] [email protected] 1 points 5 days ago

So what you're saying is that marketing provides a sober, unbiased presentatiin of the benefits and drawbacks of the products they're trying to sell, and people make rational, informed decisions? No, like you said, most people behave little better than monkeys, and marketing caters to that, further skewing the norms and pushing people to buy things based on perceived benefits while ignoring the real drawbacks. Next you'll tell me the prescription opioid epidemic wasn't exacerbated by the claims that the new opioids were less addictive and pharmaceutical companies incentivizing doctors to prescribe them more than necessary, a lot of words that boil down to 'marketing'.

[-] [email protected] 1 points 5 days ago

You also ignore the role marketing has to play in convincing people that they need those things. Most people don't need an SUV, let alone a truck, yet I see plenty of people driving these, and even thinking they're safer than sedans. But they cost more money, which means more profit, and why would it be surprising that people who sell something with a relatively inelastic market want to maximize profit dollars per sale?

[-] [email protected] 2 points 6 days ago

The only thing I like cooked spinach for is spinach dip. It's acceptable as a layer in things like lasagna, but I won't complain if it isn't there.

[-] [email protected] 1 points 6 days ago

In your defense, it's usually denoted MMM.

[-] [email protected] 69 points 1 month ago

You're talking the CEO of a company who sued Google on the premise that header files, a descriptor file for what commands can be used and what parameters they took, should be copyrighted? The CEO who poisoned the OpenOffice community so thoroughly that the fork, LibreOffice, was founded by the leaders of OpenOffice and became the de facto standard instead of the original, and it happened overnight? That guy?

[-] [email protected] 61 points 5 months ago

Trump must be really jealous of Musk. More money, more kids, from more women, better hair surgery, younger. It must be really hard for him to sit there and tell himself that he's the better person.

Good.

27
submitted 8 months ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

Basically what the title says. Sometimes something is removed, rightly or wrongly, but its removal diminishes the comments below it. The capability is already in Lemmy and it would be nice to see if one chooses to, but I can accept that the feature could promote toxic behavior.

[-] [email protected] 74 points 1 year ago

Apparently you like to read. Open the EULA for basically any commercial software (not FOSS or open source, costs money, isn't made by some small company, basically the same criteria as >90% of the games on Steam) and you are going to learn 2 things very quickly. First, all of them are just a license to use, and second, if there are patches or an online component you will have at least as many caveats and restrictions as what is included in the Steam TOS.

Now, I'm not saying you're wrong or that I'm okay with this situation (I look for open source, free, then paid for all the software that lets me do whatever it is I'm trying to do), but the situation with Steam is very typical.

[-] [email protected] 57 points 2 years ago

My favorite was white phosphorus, which caused Phossy Jaw in the employees making the matches. Switching to red phosphorus would mean a 1% increase in cost or reduction in profits (wasn't sure which based on the article). Doing so would mean your employees' bones wouldn't dissolve. It took regulation to force them to switch.

view more: next ›

GreyEyedGhost

0 post score
0 comment score
joined 2 years ago