Grumble4681's recent activity
-
Comment on Why is it so hard engage people about indirect effects? in ~talk
-
Comment on Apple will soon support encrypted RCS messaging with Android users in ~tech
Grumble4681 Link ParentThey did claim they would work with the group maintaining the standard to get it implemented and support it, which I believed, though I didn't expect it to happen as fast as it seems it is. I...They did claim they would work with the group maintaining the standard to get it implemented and support it, which I believed, though I didn't expect it to happen as fast as it seems it is.
I still fault Apple for taking as long as they did to support RCS to begin with because they were leveraging iMessage & blue/green bubble SMS failures to pressure people into buying iPhones for basic communication with their social groups.
-
Comment on New policy changes for Southwest Airlines in ~travel
Grumble4681 Link ParentIt doesn't mean it will be cheaper, but they do have competition, so what are they going to be competing on? The 'free' checked bags was a value-add to some people who didn't see it as being...It doesn't mean it will be cheaper, but they do have competition, so what are they going to be competing on? The 'free' checked bags was a value-add to some people who didn't see it as being priced into the ticket cost, probably not a significant influence on selling a ticket to a potential customer but maybe for some it was, especially people who were checking bags. If they don't lower the pricing to account for the loss of 'free' checked bags, they're potentially losing those customers who check bags. Even if they lower the price of the tickets, the cost of checking the bags now most likely would end up making ticket prices higher than they were before when they were including checked bags because those people were being subsidized before by people who weren't checking bags.
The seating as far as value to customers goes might be a wash, hard to say, I don't think I'd like open seating but I would have to weigh that against how much I have to pay to get my preferred seat in assigned seating options.
-
Comment on Suggest a remote desktop program? in ~tech
Grumble4681 Link ParentI use Splashtop in combination with Tailscale without having to pay, though I'll say it's not exactly something I feel super confident in to say I wouldn't have an issue on some occasion trying to...I use Splashtop in combination with Tailscale without having to pay, though I'll say it's not exactly something I feel super confident in to say I wouldn't have an issue on some occasion trying to access remotely.
Sometimes it will tell me that I can only use the free version on a local network and won't let me connect over Tailscale but I think I've just closed the app and reopened it or restarted my phone in one or two cases and in another case I couldn't get it to work at all I think because I had put my computer to sleep rather than powering it down first. I generally shut my PC down but that was one rare circumstance where I used sleep instead.
I also hook my PC up to a smart plug so I could force power cycle as another moonshot to correct an issue remotely. I have wake-on-lan enabled and it can be used when the PC is shut down and I have other devices on the network so I can use the Splashtop client to send the magic packet remotely.
-
Comment on Spotify down? No, your Spotify mod was just blocked—here's why it won't work anymore. in ~tech
Grumble4681 Link ParentSounds like a similar situation to adblocking at that point. Their intention is that the person visiting the site is viewing the ads, and adblocking is finding a way around that and deriving...Putting the inadequacy of their technical barriers aside, if the intention (however poorly implemented) is for one-per-person and you’ve found a way around that, and you’re deriving financial gain[1], then that kinda sounds close to fraud to me, who is not a lawyer at all.
Sounds like a similar situation to adblocking at that point. Their intention is that the person visiting the site is viewing the ads, and adblocking is finding a way around that and deriving financial gain without 'paying'.
-
Comment on Spotify down? No, your Spotify mod was just blocked—here's why it won't work anymore. in ~tech
Grumble4681 Link ParentIt's probably a violation of their 1000 page Terms of Service but I don't know that it's piracy or fraud. The card information provided to them is valid, it doesn't matter what name I give them. I...It's probably a violation of their 1000 page Terms of Service but I don't know that it's piracy or fraud. The card information provided to them is valid, it doesn't matter what name I give them. I don't give my real name when creating an account on most sites but even if I did it wouldn't materially impact their ability to detect or block the accounts. The name also wouldn't materially impact their ability to identify me as the person behind the account, because they don't ask for social security or any unique identifying information so I could be one of hundreds or thousands of people with the same first and last name. Beyond that I don't know what laws would actually be broken.
-
Comment on Spotify down? No, your Spotify mod was just blocked—here's why it won't work anymore. in ~tech
Grumble4681 LinkThis might be relevant to people who are using this but perhaps end up being unable to use it after Spotify blocks them. Before I was using the modded Spotify, I was using privacy.com and signing...This might be relevant to people who are using this but perhaps end up being unable to use it after Spotify blocks them.
Before I was using the modded Spotify, I was using privacy.com and signing up for Pandora free trials. I was doing family trials and then adding my original account onto the family plan to try to keep my songs and what not, and it worked initially then towards the end I was having issues, not sure if I screwed something up or what. I'd make new accounts on Pandora by doing
myemail+march2025@gmail.comin there, and then in 2 or 3 months I'd domyemail+may2025@gmail.comand so on. There was one time where their system glitched somehow and I had the free trial for over a year. That has actually happened to me on another service too when I used privacy.com, I set the card limit to $1 total and then when the trial ended for NBA League Pass (which is something close to $200 for a whole season), the charge failed to go through as expected but the service did not end until the end of the season. Then privacy.com apparently has a blocklist where they eventually block you from using their temp cards for certain services, so I could no longer use it on NBA League Pass (I'm assuming that NBA threatens them with legal action or something).I'll admit, it's not a strategy for everyone because there's a bit of nuisance management, but just figured I'd mention it for anyone who ends up in a situation where they don't know what they want to do.
-
Comment on Is it wrong to use AI to fact check and combat the spread of misinformation? in ~tech
Grumble4681 LinkI'm hesitant about it, but it possibly depends on the level of involvement of the person who is using it. The biggest area where I'm hesitant with LLMs that is similar usage to what you're asking...I'm hesitant about it, but it possibly depends on the level of involvement of the person who is using it.
The biggest area where I'm hesitant with LLMs that is similar usage to what you're asking about is for summarizing, which I've seen some users here on Tildes use it for that. There have been numerous reports that LLMs do not always summarize information with only the information provided in the source material but instead sometimes fabricate new information that wasn't included in the source material that was asked to be summarized. Considering that summaries are generally done to avoid reading the lengthier source material, this makes their fabrications more susceptible to going unnoticed because if you don't read the source material how do you know if it was in there or if the LLM fabricated it?
I do think they can be used as a tool in the manner you're suggesting, but I don't see it as a net positive for LLMs in that regard. More so I see it as countering some of the misinformation that someone else possibly produced with an LLM and spread around. For every person who vets the information the LLM outputs before disseminating the information provided, how many aren't vetting it? Granted the person using it responsibly has no control over the people using it irresponsibly, so it's not to say one should abstain as though it stops others from using it irresponsibly, more so I'm saying that while it may be a tool for good in some cases, overall I seriously doubt that it's a net positive.
-
Comment on BlackRock strikes $23 billion deal to place Panama Canal ports under American control in ~society
Grumble4681 Link ParentI don't know the specifics of how Panama Canal ports work in terms of who controls and has authority over them and such, but based on the article it sounds like this constitutes a portion of the...I don't know the specifics of how Panama Canal ports work in terms of who controls and has authority over them and such, but based on the article it sounds like this constitutes a portion of the ports, not all of them.
In a press release, CK Hutchison Holding said Tuesday that it would sell all shares in Hutchison Port Holdings and all shares in Hutchison Port Group Holdings, in a deal valued at $22.8 billion. The two units hold 80% of the Hutchison Ports group that operates 43 ports in 23 countries, including two of the four major ports that exist along the Panama Canal. The deal will give the BlackRock consortium control over 43 ports in 23 countries, including Mexico, the Netherlands, Egypt, Australia, Pakistan and elsewhere.
It's also the case that this headline might be overselling the deal to an extent. They sold control of many ports, not just Panama Canal, but the timing of it does seem hard to believe it's just a coincidence.
It does at least say it's "two of the four major ports that exist along the Panama Canal" but doesn't say who controls the others.
-
Comment on Weekly US politics news and updates thread - week of March 3 in ~society
Grumble4681 (edited )Link ParentI don't know that it matters what the individual candidates say if they are otherwise aligned with the party, then they will take the flak that is attributed to the party even if the individual...I don't know that it matters what the individual candidates say if they are otherwise aligned with the party, then they will take the flak that is attributed to the party even if the individual candidates themselves never did or said any of the things that are bringing that negative attention. Harris and Walz are indisputably Democrats, so whatever a potential voter thinks or feels about Democrats, Harris and Walz have to contend with that. Compare that to someone like Bernie for example, who caucuses with Democrats but is otherwise an Independent, even when running in the Democratic Party primary for President, he was getting boxed out by establishment Democrats reasoning that he wasn't a Democrat. That was part of the 'outsider' perception of both him and Trump in that 2016 election.
Also I think using reason based messaging is weak and loses elections. Overwhelmingly the average voters have become emotionally motivated and don't vote based on reason, they vote on emotion. I'm not talking about emotion as in Sarah McLaughlin "In the arms of angel" ASPCA commercials emotion, more so how people feel their life is going or feel about certain things they perceive are happening in the world. If you also account for basic human nature where some things are easier to manipulate people to feel a certain way about things, whether that be anger or paranoia etc. then you realize these are the emotions that end up winning and losing elections more often than not. If you look back at Obama's 2008 election, that was certainly a case of optimism and more positive emotions winning out, still rooted in the idea of 'change' meaning that people weren't happy with where things were but were accepting of messaging that was optimistic and positive. You can only sell optimism and positivity in that form so many times if you don't bring about significant changes, and even when you do bring about significant changes you're still fighting the hedonic treadmill and the onslaught of money backed messaging to influence perception regardless of what significant changes did happen or were made. This ties back into my prior paragraph as well, these emotions become associated with parties based on all these factors and more, and those candidates have to overcome this association.
Edit: To add, it's also worth noting that the most recent non-reason based messaging that Democrats have used, the emotional motivation, has been fear. Of course Republicans use this too. Fear of the other side. Clearly it's effective on a large number of people, clearly not enough for Democrats to win, but I'm just adding this to say I realize Democrats aren't solely using reason-based messaging. The one issue I take with the fear-based messaging for Democrats is that in a way this has existed for a little while but has progressed and arguably I'd say Trump absolutely warrants being fearful for how he will misuse and abuse the power given to him, but the problem is that Democrats aren't selling a solution to this problem in the long-run. If Trump is to be feared and voters should elect any Democrat because they aren't Trump, how are Democrats going to stop the next Trump? I don't mean Trump himself, but what Trump represents, whoever fills that role beyond Trump. At a certain point I think some people see through this and it makes it look less genuine that Democrats fear Trump or anyone when they have no solution other than don't vote for the bad guy which just so happens to leave them and only them as the only alternative, and some people won't be receptive to reasoning so how do you sell them solution of reason?
-
Comment on Sunday morning musings no. 2 How to be nice but authentic to people who seem decent but whose jobs seem to be a big part of the problem? in ~society
Grumble4681 Link ParentWhat if your government mandates you teach things that aren't true or mandates you don't teach things that are true? Sometimes it's not even mandated or done for ideological reasons but possibly...What if your government mandates you teach things that aren't true or mandates you don't teach things that are true? Sometimes it's not even mandated or done for ideological reasons but possibly organizational ineptitude or maybe some individual ineptitude.
If the sins of your employer are the sins of the employee for carrying them out, which is how I interpreted OPs post, then teachers aren't off limits either.
-
Comment on Sunday morning musings no. 2 How to be nice but authentic to people who seem decent but whose jobs seem to be a big part of the problem? in ~society
Grumble4681 (edited )Link ParentAre there any jobs that are above this criticism? I'm sure there might be a few unicorns out there, but one of the things that came to mind reading this is, what does OP do for a living? I find it...I think you're on a site where a number of folks work those kinds of jobs, and from the comments on this thread, many aren't too excited about looking in the mirror.
Are there any jobs that are above this criticism? I'm sure there might be a few unicorns out there, but one of the things that came to mind reading this is, what does OP do for a living? I find it hard to believe there is no way someone couldn't find something objectionable in their job. At its core, if you live in a capitalist society, you could argue most businesses are the problem.
Hospitals in general are horrible on an organizational level to many people despite that they save lives and tons of people would die if they didn't exist. If you work for a hospital, are you part of the problem, or part of the solution? You can even go down more specifically to medical professionals rather than the hospital organization. Physicians, nurses etc. are the ones directly saving lives after all, and the hospital administrators and various other staff are more supporting the organization that pays those physicians and nurses to save lives. But they're also paying them to perform unnecessary procedures, use unnecessary materials they can charge for, work fast and work long hours to get as much profit as possible which arguably results in more errors and harm. And the people who save lives are the same ones taking the money on the other end to do the things that are arguably worse for people. So the person paying someone to do something unethical is one problem, but OP is talking about the person who is receiving pay to do something unethical and I don't see how you can't hold physicians and nurses to the same judgement when you know what hospitals do on an organizational level.
So while OP started this about companies that aren't the hospital, why is the hospital off the hook? Why are the people working for the hospital off the hook? The person who did the imaging that gets resold, what if they know it's being sold non-anonymously to some other company? Does that person bear responsibility for doing imaging that they know the hospital is going to sell in an unethical manner?
I'm also not trying to argue that it's pointless to hold people accountable for what they do at their job. I do think people should be accountable to an extent, but also people have to work these jobs to make a living. That's the society we have created.
-
Comment on Are most jobs not what you thought they would be? Expectations vs. reality. in ~talk
Grumble4681 LinkI fall more in this category, though not with any solutions to the problem. This is probably going to be off-topic to your post because I'm so far out of the normal that it's not relevant to most...I'm also looking for, validation or commiseration, "yeah, I feel that way too, it sucks" and am open to some problem solving, "I was once in your position and I did X,Y,Z and here were my results, YMMV"
I fall more in this category, though not with any solutions to the problem. This is probably going to be off-topic to your post because I'm so far out of the normal that it's not relevant to most people. It's on topic to the literal question, but just beyond what is a normal within bounds answer. I've only had 7 years of employment of 18 years that I've been a legal adult. The other years don't include but a semester of college. From age 19-21 and age 28-33 I had employment.
Jobs that I personally had or ones that I read about or observed are not what I thought they would be. Even college wasn't what I thought it would be which is why I also opted out of that after a semester. I personally just gave up. For a time I was accepting financial support from my parents to maintain my existence while unemployed, but that isn't an option for me anymore. There were also times I attempted to end the maintenance of that existence. You can see there was a time where I gave the working world another shot but the result ended up being the same in the end.
I do not want to work, I don't want to pretend that I'm looking for work. Partly it's not even the work itself, it's the work between the work that I probably dislike even more. I hate the 'salesmanship' side of looking for a job and elevating yourself in your current job. I don't want to sell myself to potential employers by filling a resume with bullshit and going through typical interview tactics and processes. I don't want to sell my performance to my bosses or do their job for them of selling my performance to their bosses. I also don't want to be the victim or the fool that is exploited for not selling their performance either. I opt out of the paradigm altogether. It does not work for me or my circumstances. I acknowledge the reality of the situation that follows to live in a world where I have no employment, no property etc. and there's only a few endings for that situation and I'll have to take the one that involves the least suffering.
It's of course worth noting that I have a similar problem with other aspects of life, and these things all are interwoven to an extent. You can see a common theme in many of the responses here or in similar discussions elsewhere, what predominantly gets people through the bullshit of jobs is a fulfilling life outside of work. I recognize that part of the reason why I struggled with work as much as I did is that I did not have things to fulfill me outside of work and I kept trying to get those through work only to be perpetually frustrated that it doesn't work that way, especially not for a person in my circumstances.
-
Comment on Volodymyr Zelenskyy Fox News interview after Oval Office meeting in ~society
Grumble4681 (edited )Link ParentGraham wasn't always supportive of Trump. Graham flip flopped on that like he has many other things, and is not held to account for any of it, much like most elected representatives. "Use my words...- Exemplary
Graham wasn't always supportive of Trump. Graham flip flopped on that like he has many other things, and is not held to account for any of it, much like most elected representatives.
"Use my words against me" - Lindsay Graham
Trump doesn't have anything on Lindsay as there's no way he could have it exclusively to himself and if it's not exclusive there's little chance of it being kept quiet this long. There's only a few things that can even be held against people who have so little accountability as it is. Literally even when the person himself tells the voters to use his words against him and then betrays his own words, he's not held to account. And he CLEARLY AND SPECIFICALLY defined the terms that he later betrayed, so it's not like he could weasel out of it based on vague language. There's just no accountability as long as you favor the political headwinds, you can lie, cheat, steal and none of it matters.
Also I don't like linking a video uploaded by Fox News as they probably get revenue from this, but I suspect that even if I downloaded it and re-uploaded it that it would get blocked by Youtube or automatically claimed by content ID, but here's your proof that Lindsay Graham didn't always support Trump. So I'll provide some quotes for people who wouldn't want to click on a Fox News video. I realize the video linked in the post itself is also Fox News so I guess it may not matter.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GKLO4lXYaGI
"If I'm Barack Obama and a Democrat, I would do everything I could to nominate Donald Trump. He's disparaged women, he has 80% disapproval rating among Hispanics. At the end of the day he would be the most flawed nominee in the history of the Republican party." -Lindsay Graham
"I'm not going to try to get into the mind of Donald Trump because I don't think there's a whole lot of space there. I think he's a kook, I think he's crazy, I think he's unfit for office and I'm a Republican and he's not. He's not a conservative Republican, he's an opportunist. He could shoot somebody on 5th avenue, and 25 or 30% of people would still follow him because he gives voice to their anger and frustration but he's not fit to be President of the United States." - Lindsay Graham
"70% of us in South Carolina believe that Donald Trump is not a conservative Republican. We think that he's unfit for office, that he would be a terrible Commander-in-Chief, he doesn't have the temperament or judgement, but when he accused President George W. Bush who we admire in large numbers here, of lying to the American people about the Iraq War and being responsible for the most vicious attack on our homeland since Pearl Harbor, that is going to stick with 70% of the public." .... "70% of the people will not vote for Donald Trump. He's completely unelectable. He has an 80% disapproval rating with the fastest growing demographic in America, the Hispanic community with growth potential. 60% of the people in a recent poll believe that Donald Trump would be the most likely best candidate to beat Hillary Clinton or Bernie Sanders. With all due respect, you're absolutely dead wrong. We would get slaughtered as a party if Donald Trump is our nominee and quite frankly we would deserve it." -Lindsay Graham.
Granted Lindsay Graham was sort of speaking as a mouthpiece for the Jeb Bush campaign in that piece, but he's also seemingly speaking on behalf of himself to an extent when he talks about people he represents in South Carolina.
To me, this reads like Lindsay Graham understood why those 30% of people would support Trump, he just underestimated (like many people back then did), how many people would support him. When it became clear the extent to which people would vote for Trump, I don't think Lindsay Graham needed to be blackmailed into supporting Trump, he just recognized that a person he thought was unelectable was actually very electable and that he needed to shift radically to maintain his position considering he drastically underestimated (or overestimated) voters in his own state.
-
Comment on Framework Laptop 12 is a cheaper, more colorful take on a repairable laptop PC in ~tech
Grumble4681 Link ParentAre there any existing products that are serving schools currently that show that schools desire 12" devices more than 13" devices? I'm not involved in that realm and have no reason to know that...Are there any existing products that are serving schools currently that show that schools desire 12" devices more than 13" devices? I'm not involved in that realm and have no reason to know that information so it's somewhat of an earnest question but also one of skepticism that the difference in size would be that significant of a factor in that market.
-
Comment on Framework Laptop 12 is a cheaper, more colorful take on a repairable laptop PC in ~tech
Grumble4681 LinkI find it rather curious that it's not built on the basis of working with much of the Framework 13 components. I understand that a convertible laptop/tablet does benefit from being a little...I find it rather curious that it's not built on the basis of working with much of the Framework 13 components. I understand that a convertible laptop/tablet does benefit from being a little smaller to use in tablet form factors, plus smaller screen etc. may cut down on costs, but that's at the expense of increasing complexity of supply chain and parts.
I've sort of been in the market for something like this, as I don't currently own a tablet and my laptop is old and bulky, so I had been considering getting something lightweight that can also serve as a tablet for some situations where that form factor is more convenient. So this is something that could potentially fit the bill. I'm not particularly excited about it being turned into more of a flimsy toy compared to the Framework 13 but seeing as they really didn't release much about it and their website has an inexplicable waiting lobby to load the site, I guess I'll keep an open mind about what the product could still be.
-
Comment on What insights do you have as to why and how the US right is accepting blatant corruption and why the government cuts are so extreme and unrelated to stated goals? in ~society
Grumble4681 Link ParentHere's a link to a Washington Post article archive that has google search trend graphics and discusses that denial of Project 2025 relative to the search trends, among other graphics and...It's not definitive to me that it was 'widely acknowledged and discussed' depending on how you define that. If you look at some of the graphics towards the bottom it uses a YouGov poll comparing 'Awareness of recent news events' and compares the Biden withdrawal, Supreme Court immunity decision and Project 2025 and splits it among party affiliations. Project 2025 seemed to poll below 50% for non-Democrats if I'm understanding the graphic correctly. It also shows the spikes of how much it was mentioned on various news networks in another graphic.
So I don't think that I'd consider it 'pretty well hidden from the general population' but it also may not be considered widely acknowledged and discussed either.
-
Comment on Dating app cover-up: How Tinder, Hinge, and their corporate owner keep rape under wraps in ~tech
Grumble4681 Link ParentI don't think it requires a police report/arrest to get removed. Their own policy says as much. This is the link that the article provides to source that claim. Now you might question if that...I don't think it requires a police report/arrest to get removed. Their own policy says as much. This is the link that the article provides to source that claim.
Match Group’s official safety policy states that when a user is reported for assault, “all accounts found that are associated with that user will be banned from our platforms.”
Now you might question if that means reporting them to Match or to the police, but this other part further down the page it says this.
We encourage users to report all instances of abuse or assault
All users of Match Group brands are able to easily report instances of abuse or assault in-app or online. When a member reports abuse or assault to one of the Match Group brands, we review and take necessary action, which can include identifying the user and blocking any associated accounts that are found on Match Group platforms.
So it's pretty clear by that, Match is saying they will ban people with no police report necessary, yet they don't seem to follow their own policy that well, and when they do, they do it with the most ineffective enforcement possible.
Match can ban anyone it wants for any reason, so I don't think the issue is that they're concerned about an individual report being something like 'hearsay' in terms of any kind of ethical or legal framing. It seems more to me that Match does not want to open the can of worms that comes with taking on more accountability, especially transparency. In the article there's several instances of employee communication that seem to support something along this line, do the minimum amount required legally and nothing more, going above and beyond I suspect they might somehow become more liable or at the least they view it as posing a greater threat than the cost of their reputation of these reports coming out on how they do nothing.
-
Comment on Apple TV available on Google Play Store in ~tv
Grumble4681 (edited )Link ParentI'd argue it started falling off sometime after AT&T acquired Time Warner. The CEO at the time, Randall Stephenson (it might have also been the newly installed CEO of WarnerMedia, John Stankey, I...I'd argue it started falling off sometime after AT&T acquired Time Warner. The CEO at the time, Randall Stephenson (it might have also been the newly installed CEO of WarnerMedia, John Stankey, I can't quite remember for sure), made remarks that indicated they weren't satisfied with the output of HBO and basically wanted more content produced. Of course he did it with the usual corpospeak, saying they don't want lesser quality, they just want more of higher quality, but we all know that's bullshit. They just wanted to compete with Netflix more directly, and that means churning out shit at a high clip.
Of course I have no idea whether it had any influence whatsoever, but it wasn't lost on me at the time that HBOs most recent hit show, Westworld, started plummeting hard after the acquisition. I would assume it's pretty unlikely that execs from a new parent company directly interfered that early after an acquisition on an already established show, but I can't help but wonder. I know it's probably more likely that the showrunners just didn't go in the right direction with it.
The thing that bothers me with how AT&T approached HBO is that they tried to make it something it wasn't. HBO is generally 'lean-in' television, and Netflix is generally more 'lean-back' television. There's a more limited audience for 'lean-in' television I would imagine, so I get that if they want to expand they'd have to do other types of shows, but that's not HBO. It even turns out that after all the corporate merger/acquisition upheaval of HBO, and trying to make it more popular, when WarnerBrothers Discovery did analysis on the streaming platform name, having the word HBO in it was less appealing because of associations that HBO had long held for adult content and what not. So they drop HBO and just rename it Max. It's almost like if they would have just all left HBO alone to begin with, and let it do the one thing it does better than any other company out there, it would be more valuable that way.
And here's the biggest case for why I blame it on AT&T. Richard Plepler who was the head of HBO at the time of the acquisition left shortly after AT&T acquisition. He was with the company for more than 25 years. There were reports that HBO was feeling less autonomy under the new ownership.
It's also worth noting that Plepler set up his own company and made a deal with Apple TV+ to produce new content, and at the time I said that likely Apple TV+ would potentially start getting higher end content IF Apple doesn't allow their brand to influence content. It would turn out that Plepler was an executive producer for "The Problem with John Stewart", which was notably shut down by Apple because they didn't like the content being covered. I also seriously question Apple's willingness to put any serious or mature content on the platform since it does have the Apple name in it, but I also haven't watched everything on the platform so perhaps there is something on there that proves my suspicions wrong.
-
Comment on The American physicians are healing themselves with Ozempic in ~health
Grumble4681 Link ParentI'm curious about this if you or someone else happens to know more. Does stopping the medication have some rebound-hunger, or does hunger return to levels prior to taking the medication? It seems..."What happens when you stop the medication?"
You gain weight. What happens when you stop your blood pressure medication? It goes up. Don't stop the meds. Some people need medication. Some need it forever.
I'm curious about this if you or someone else happens to know more. Does stopping the medication have some rebound-hunger, or does hunger return to levels prior to taking the medication? It seems almost definitive that people are bound to the drug for life based on much of the discussion, but I wondered if there weren't some people or some paths that worked for some people where it was a temporary measure? Mostly because some of the descriptions I've read it seems to be that people's eating habits can change and their diets can change when taking the medication, and I didn't know if its not possible for those habits to carry a person through a phase where they stop taking the drug. But I do realize, part of the reason why people sometimes need the drug is because that part of their brain keeps signaling hunger, I suffer from this myself, and if they stop taking it then its quite possible the hunger will override the habits, I just didn't know if that was the case the overwhelming majority of the time.
Are there trivial actions? What makes these actions trivial or how did you determine they were trivial?
It came across in your post as though this was an example of a trivial action, since you followed the part about trivial actions with this. I wouldn't necessarily classify navigating an unfamiliar UI to be trivial. I'd say there's definitely sliding scales of difficulties but it's also very relative to the prior experiences and knowledge the user already has among other factors. I was born in a not poor family so I grew up with a computer, and subsequently I developed computer literacy that I was able to constantly iterate on from a young age. But it would be wrong of me to say that it would be trivial for someone else who was a similar age as me to think they should have the same capabilities when I have no clue what their life experiences were relative to mine.
You also mentioned in some comments some other general examples, like eating less meat or just less consumption in general, which I also don't think are necessarily trivial. Just because something isn't trivial doesn't mean I think people can't do it, people can overcome lots of difficult challenges, but I think it is a misunderstanding to classify these problems as trivial because I don't think it accurately values the effort or energy it may require for some people to address them.
Furthermore, no one can be better at everything. So you are picking things you value, and because you value them you place your effort here so you improve at them and wonder why others don't, but are you so sure that other people don't place value in some things that could be argued to be ethically superior to a position where you may currently be indifferent or unaware? Let's say hypothetically you eat chocolate. Do you get ethically sourced chocolate? Why is less meat consumption where you put your focus and not on where you get your chocolate from? Maybe you do consider your chocolate sourcing, I don't know, I'm just trying to illustrate that it's a certainty that somewhere there is something you will be ignoring because there's not enough time in the day to give all of it energy.