270 karma · joined July 5, 2023
And yeah, of course there would be much bigger backlash for their largest clients who probably prefer this new model. Which IMHO doesn’t seem entirely unreasonable if you’re on Pro (which you current have to be anyway if your company has over 200k revenue)
Probably not, I’m not a fan of these changes but most people seem to really over exaggerating because they don’t understand how the new (very convoluted) pricing model works.
The $.2 install fee (only for users living in “rich” countries) seems to be there just to incentive developers to upgrade their subscriptions to Pro which offers much higher revenue/install limits and lower fees above them.
I highly doubt many/any(?) games os Gamepass or Apple Arcade were created using the personal edition (after all they already have a 100/200k per COMPANY revenue limit. would MS really pay less than that for any game and you have zero sales every else?)
On Pro you’d only have to worry if your downloads went significantly over a limit. Which is concern in this case, just relatively a much smaller one. In any cases it seems to create some false incentives for fixed fee developers (unless the publisher agrees to pay the fee which would be pretty reasonable)
IMHO so far the biggest issue with these pricing changes seems to be that they are way too complicated. It was unreasonable for them to expect that most people commenting online would bother looking at more than a single number (or would understand their current pricing model for that matter)
If you managed to get over 200k installs and 200k revenue you can just upgrade to pro and increase these limits to 1 million.
I’m not a fan of these changes and the whole model seems too convoluted but the fees don’t seem to be that unreasonable.
It seems they are actually even lower now than they were for a subset of users.
Not that I’m a fan of those changes, but I’d bet the $0.2 fee is only there to encourage anyone affected to upgrade to Pro.
The fact that most people will only see a single number and ignore the rest of the quite complicated pricing model says a lot about their marketing department… I mean what did they expect?
I guess they are betting that R&D costs are fixed(ish) or at least will grow slower than revenue. Which of course doesn’t always work, especially over the last few years where free money resulted in massive bloat.
Why would you say that? lol.
If we have a large surplus of cheap solar/wind energy during certain periods (which is unavoidable if they share will continue increasing significantly in the future). Of course yeah, that only works if this process becomes relatively cheap and efficient.
I’m not sure that true. Han civilizations “thrived” under much worse conditions than we can reasonably expect (by that I mean that technological/economical/social progress historically outweighed environmental factors and I don’t why this won’t be the case in the future)
Maybe. It would’ve been a very different war between different nations for probably very different reasons, though.
> WW1 was a result of interests outside of germany.
I don’t see how can that be even remotely true.
They didn’t. Britain and France went to war with Russia to stop it from dismembering the Ottoman empire.
The war over Bessarabia, Crimean just happened to be nearby and it was very strategically important in the region.
> when everything can be blamed on Germany since, at least, Bismarck, by all means go for it.
I’m not “blaming” Germany, just saying that its unification disrupted the balance of power in Europe. Many of the things which led to WW1 were mainly a reaction to that.
> So, the Brits are at fault,
Why do you think I’m try to blame on anyone for anything?
> What ifs are completely pointless,
They might be fun. I don’t believe we can just assume that history is 100% deterministic.
> understanding why things happened the way they is very important so.
Yes?
In some cases e.g. airplane there simply seem to be no other options (unless there is a massive breakthrough in battery tech and possibly out understanding of physics). So ‘clean’ burning synthetic fuels don’t seem like a terrible idea.
Of course it all comes down to energy efficiency, but if solar/wind continue growing and carbon capture somehow becomes cost-efficient (assuming free solar/wind energy) it seems like a much better option than continuing oil extraction or even biofuels (which of course is also technically “carbon capture” just not very land/water efficient).
> we are not even a bit ahead.
Of course. But how does it make it different from every other option? Moving to 100% renewables won’t reverse climate change either .
I assumes that was the entire point of carbon capture?
i.e. instead of introducing more carbon into the atmosphere from oil/etc. you just reuse what’s already in it?
You’d still have North Germany Prussia and Austria aligned South Germany which would’ve been fairly strong power in their own right and none of the major powers (especially Britain) would’ve any interest in allowing the other to gobble up neighboring German states (that didn’t matter as much back in the 1600s due to technological/logistical/economic/etc. reasons)
> Austria was very willing to go to war in Serbia alone,
Austria was certainly not willing to go to war with Russia alone.
> After all so, as I said earlier, reasons for war in Europe were plenty
German overconfidence about their capacity to wage a war on two fronts possibly being the main one.
Also no unified Germany would have meant that France and Britain wouldn’t have had that many reasons.
Of course. Because Germany had their back. If AH was in weaker position it might not have evencome to that because they would have been more willing to compromise in general.
AH would be also allied/aligned with the South German state(s) which would’ve meant that its relations with Prussia would have been cold and antagonistic if not openly hostile.
> There were too many people at the time who wanted that war for various reasons for it not to happen ine way or the other.
In some ways it’s a direct outcome of what happened in the 1870s.
No unified Germany, would have meant there would’ve been much lesser need to form alliances to contain it (e.g. Russia and Prussia would’ve probably been allies/much closer since they both hated AH)
Which makes a Franco-British rapprochement much less likely (Britain was generally pro-Prussia in 1870 after all). Also in the future UK would’ve likely aligned with Prussia/North Germany just to maintain the balance of power in Europe.
All in all.. yeah there would still be war, we’d just be more likely to see a higher number smaller scale conflicts instead of something like WW1.
> It's not _that_ hard.
Yes it is, for most people given the condition. Implying that they are too lazy etc. it’s just not helpful.
> want us to believe they're bad or unsafe transportation methods
Conspiracy theories are generally not that useful. Cars are objectively the superior method of transport in low density areas (there is no use in denying that)
And it likely would’ve meant no WW1
Not really.
Its about on par with France and significantly above Germany.
Presumably your employer pays much more than that? Which still technically money you earn, you just don’t see it
Why every time when someone points out the fact that tech workers in Europe are severely underpaid in relation the US someone always sees it as a personal attack.
How does that in any way justify lower salaries pretax?
> With these institutions in place life looks qualitatively different at any salary.
I’m not sure it does. People who earn above the median rarely have access go welfare (unless its child related). Also working for an American tech company you’ll have decent insurance and can save another 50k per year just in case anyway..
Seems to he false? For Federal inmates anyway..
It was just $35k back in 2019. So it can’t be much more than half of what you’re claiming these days.
* https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2021/09/01/2021-18...
> how ethically is this worse than private companies making billions building weapons of mass destruction? Or platforms of mass surveillance?
Doesn’t seem to be even tangentially related?
I’m not sure about Barcelona but San Francisco is pretty much like Paris in that way (just way leas dense).
It’s really not a fair comparison.
Both sides are just trying to maximize/minimize their gain/cost, introducing some moral angle just seems weird to me.
Especially when any attempt to significantly expand the housing supply (considering the current situation) should surely be viewed as a net positive for the society as a whole?
If the deep integration between hardware, software and services is the main reason why people buy Apple’s products the harm from breaking the up might outweigh any of the benefits.