hellotomyrars

The sale of Grindr is a much closer precedent https://techcrunch.com/2020/03/06/grindr-sold-china-national...

The bill doesn't block any content on Tiktok, it is to require American ownership of the company. The penalty for non-compliance would remove Tiktok from appstores, but it wouldn't prevent Americans from accessing it either via the web (Probably easy to sideload on Android at least).

People largely don't seem to read past a headline that says US to ban Tiktok (or whatever other permutation of Tiktok and ban). It is an incomplete and dishonest picture of what the actual legislation does and the purpose of it.

I'm not surprised people at large get up in arms if you say congress is going to ban Tiktok. If you tell them the full story, that the legislation requires them to divest from Chinese ownership or no longer be widely available, I think the response would be somewhat different. I'd certainly like to think so, anyways.

I think a lot of this is the language used in reporting around it. It is presented as a Ban on Tiktok in headlines and people who regurgitate them when the purpose of the legislation is not to ban Tiktok but require them to sell their American operations to a domestic company. The penalty for non-compliance is to not allow them to operate in the US but the goal isn't to ban Tiktok.

This is the wrong argument. This legislation doesn't censor TikTok like China censors social media/the internet at large. It simply requires the ownership of Tiktok to be American in the US. This is the same thing China does (You can't operate in China without a Chinese partner to run your operation in China.)

You can debate whether or not it is reasonable or important to for the US to impose similar ownership requirements for businesses operating in the US, but couching it in argument of censorship the way China does it is a real false equivalence. Congress doesn't want to censor your speech on Tiktok (Which isn't how the 1st amendment works anyways) they want China to divest itself of US operations.

I also can't replicate your results but GP is pretty aggressive in a way I don't feel is necessary. Sorry you got scammed out of your crypto, hope it wasn't too bad. I do agree with the sentiment that you should be incredibly vigilant and verify anything you're going to put your money inside of, Bitcoin or otherwise though. But people in positions and wallets that are far bigger than you (presumably) have done worse so don't feel too bad (Ripple CEO losing $112 million worth of XRP, for example).

Edit: Unless that app had a ton of reviews removed recently, I recommend in the future looking at that number. It is crazy that they've gamed it up to #97 in the finance charts according to the app store listing for sure, though the Play store is not immune to this manipulation.

The US is big. It is very location dependent and whether your utility is private or public.

I live in rural Washington and my rate is $0.0634/kWh. My utility is a public one and also non-generating. The power comes from a Federal agency(Bonneville Power Administration) which is is in turn overseen by the Department of Energy.

US DOT maintains a valuation of a statistical life specifically as a metric for this reason. (https://www.transportation.gov/office-policy/transportation-...)

For 2012 it was 9.1 million. So 8 people doesn't quite get us to 100 million, but it isn't far off.

Also PG&E absolutely doesn't deserve the benefit of the doubt on their safety culture.

Okay. You disagree with the assessment of the Wii U, including that of Nintendo themselves. That is fine. I’m not trying to say failure without saying failure. I stand by everything I said.

Have a nice day, genuinely.

In terms of `the strategy working` absolutely not, for the reasons previously listed.

I wouldn’t argue the WiiU doesn’t have a unique approach to system design and I never did.

I can’t argue with your personal feelings. My point that the hardware is underpowered compared to MS\Sony is an agreement that they aren’t trying to compete with them directly, instead making a product that has meaningful differences in form factor/function rather than technical. It is a part of how they execute that strategy.

The WiiU doesn’t reflect that trend. It was sold at a loss. It was initially sold as a machine that would have strong third-party support, unlike the Wii. Ubisoft and EA were presented front-and-center as supporting it. That only lasted for a year because the WiiU was able to compete with 360/PS3 on power, but the investment was no longer worth it for third parties to do multi-platform releases once new consoles were out. Nintendo did incorporate Xbox One-like TV control mechanisms into the WiiU.

Ultimately the issue of whether or not it was a failure is again something you can take a personal feeling about but statements made by Nintendos leadership in their official capacity are hardly shy about how much it did not meet their own expectations in the marketplace. They wanted to sell at least as many units as the Wii and sold more like 1/8th as many units.

I agree Nintendo has done well by not competing to be the third horse in a two horse race. I don’t agree that the Wii U reflected a good execution of that strategy.

Well, no. The Wii U is one of the two notable examples where Nintendo did sell the hardware at a loss. This isn’t speculation. Iwata said this in shareholders calls. ( https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-20095125)

The Wii was a breakout success in a demographic the market had never previously reached. It is def unrealistic to expect the Wii U to have recaptured that market but it was done about as poorly as possible.

I’m not saying the Wii U was a failure in totality but it did not live up to expectations for both Nintendo as a corporation or for many consumers. It’s okay to recognize this, Nintendo themselves did.

To be clear, I am not saying Nintendo is wrong for making the hardware choices they have. By all accounts they intended to have a meaningful Switch hardware revision when the OLED hit but decided against it because of the then-exploded and uncertain supply chain.

That said, I don't think you can draw a nice and neat trendline specifically from the Wii. I think the strategy has worked out well for them since its inception but a trend line from the Wii to the Switch only looks really good if you don't include the Wii U.

I don't think this is an accurate portrayal of those feelings, certainly not mine. DRM has no benefit to the consumer except in the abstract sense that it is needed to protect the product so a company can make more things in the future. Whatever. At best it is inoffensive and not noticable, but more typically it is an issue.

The vast majority of games on PC at this point do not have any DRM, or I guess I should say any meaningful DRM. Denuvo games being the most notable exception. But most games on Steam have literally nothing other than a paperthin basic license check for Steam which is circumventable in a dozen incredibly trivial and automated/generic ways.

PC seems to be doing pretty great as a platform, better than ever, even. Honestly I think it might be worth reframing/clarifying what you are defining as piracy. If I own a Switch (and I do.) And I own games on that platform that I purchased from the e-shop. (And I do.) and I play those games on my PC with Yuzu/Ryujinx is that piracy? I don't even mean in the legal sense, I just mean what you do you personally think?

The need to defend/excuse Yuzus clear involvement is makes for an incredibly leading question, but the simplest answer is that I don't think people are surprised that Nintendo is doing it, just that it is shitty and not only does it not actually address the issue, it has potentially hugely chilling effects on legitimate software development.

I understand why some people are rubbed a little wrong by very mature and well-developed emulation of a current-gen (technically) platform. 100% it is used in piracy. Does that mean it shouldn't exist though? I sure don't think so. And that opinion isn't because I'm pro-piracy.

For what it is worth, on its merits, Yuzu actually did take steps to prevent casual users from playing TOTK pre-release. But also I don't think it is Yuzu's fault because Nintendo had its game leak.

Companies want money. Nintendo wants money. Nintendo is entitled to think this any anything else is a threat to their bottom line and I'm not surprised by it. Nintendo is also failing to serve the market in a way that meets its needs and that is legitimate driver of switch emulation usage, legally or otherwise. I can't feel bad about that.

I don't know why people would have piled on to the Yuzu Patreon during the TOTK leak, given what they did to prevent its usage for that purpose on a base level. There is no strong reason to give the Yuzu team money on Patreon. Daily builds are cool but hardly critical. It is impressive how much they're making on Patreon but that isn't money that Nintendo is going to get back if Yuzu was struck from the platform either.

Being anti-DRM isn't being pro-piracy and that is a false equivalence that I really hate to see. The least protected platform is now increasingly supported by the two other hardware manufacturers (Neither MS first-party or the Sony published stuff is laden with any non-trivial DRM) and the never-ending doomsaying about the PC as a hotbed for piracy really doesn't seem to have panned out the way many have predicted.

DRM sucks. Can't play netflix above 720p outside of their app/edge on Windows. Capcom added DRM to many games that were several years old breaking mods and proton/steam deck compatibility. In a world where DRM didn't get in the way, fine. We don't live in that world and wanting to not be punished as a consumer because DRM overwhelmingly sucks doesn't seem like a hot take. My steam library is over 1,000 games deep. I pay for shit. I don't want to deal with bullshit.

The DMCA specifically has language about being entitled to circumvent a technological measure" for "the purpose of enabling interoperability of an independently created computer program". This language has never been tested in court but there is a compelling argument to be made.

The Copyright Office has become increasingly friendly to these types of arguments as well, though they have imposed some limitations on games hardware. The next set of rules/guidance they put out won't be until october (They do it every 3 years).

Yuzu isn't sold* as a product and unless Nintendo can convince the court that the mere act of emulation (or obtaining the console keys required to make Yuzu function in the first place) violate their copyright, then I don't see it personally. You can run code that isn't owned by Nintendo on a Switch. Maybe there is a reasonableness argument that people aren't using Yuzu to play Switch homebrew, but there is a homebrew scene around the Switch.

Nintendo is famous for not selling their hardware at a loss unlike other console manufacturers. The only systems known to be sold at a loss were the 3DS (after price cuts) and the Wii U. This is part of why the hardware is underpowered compared to contemporaries.

Sony also sued Connectix and lost. Sony purchased the rights to the emulator made by Connectix a year or so later. Connectix shut down 2 years after they sold the VGS to Sony but it isn't clear their fate was negatively impacted by Sony.

This move by Nintendo is typical and there is no intent for it to ever actually go to court. It is legal bullying/posturing. The ironic/hopeful part is that team behind Yuzu does have some financial backing and this is going to create goodwill for them and they might actually be able to put up a defense (perhaps with the EFF getting involved maybe?)

The reach of a per financial institution credit file is different. I’m also not sure how much that is true or practical without a Pre-existing relationship with that particular institution but when your credit is polled for things that aren’t about even obtaining credit (renting/employment) what matters is the FICO Scorsese from the big 3. They have an outsized importance in functioning in society and deserve extra scrutiny.

I don’t have an inherent problem with having a broadly accepted and comprehensive credit-risk profile, but the way we do it and the institutions who profit off of it are disgusting.

I haven’t had issues with the annual credit report process personally. The system is shitty though.

Equifax will give you a copy off your real credit report once per month if you sign up with them which is better than the other two will do. The rub though is they try as hard as possible to make you think you have to pay for it and every time you sign in you have to decline to pay.

It’s so fucked up. If we’re going to have our lives controlled by credit agencies, then individuals should be able to access their real score at any time for no cost and no bullshit. What a fucking racket.

Okay. Genuine question for you, how do you feel about other forms of public utilities like electricity and water?

The core thesis I don't disagree with. Microsoft deserves scrutiny. However, I don't think Microsoft's core business and marketing is about promising to protect and preserve consumer privacy while actively working to exploit it as much as possible.

What straw man is constructed here? There are people who don’t think they should pay for schools with their taxes. There are people who literally are advocating to instead be paid to not use public schools at all.

Many people strongly disagree about the places their tax dollars go. It is maybe one of the single most common complaints people utter and this is an example of it? People are able to make decisions about where their tax dollars go but only in the abstract of collective action via legislation. It’s kind of how governments work on a fundamental level and most of politics is about where the tax dollars go.

If a strong majority of people choose to do something as a municipality, that is the system at work. Sorry to the 10% of people who think they’re getting a bad deal (and are also almost certainly wrong on an objective level unless they just don’t want internet at all).

The suggestion that instead a private enterprise should be spun up for it so they can choose to not subscribe is the antithesis of the entire point. The entire point is that the cost is already beared by the taxpayers in the first place and that it should serve them. It makes more sense to invest directly in the creation and keep it in the hands of those who bore the cost. We give billions out in corporate welfare and yet the companies who get that money are quite often the most reviled in the nation based on public polling (Telcos). It is almost like the incentives aren’t aligned.

I don’t have a fundamental problem with private possession of firearms and in fact own one but boy is this not the “Solution” to any problem and I think it’s a terrible look for responsible gun ownership.

If I put that sign in front of my house, nothing would happen. The implication that somehow I would suddenly be robbed left and right I don’t think holds that much water to begin with but especially doesn’t make sense in many places people live, like a small town like mine. Just going to confuse the neighbors.

Many are SD-optional. Personally I would (and have) never deployed one without local storage. It just doesn’t make sense, but having seen people with some of the lowest end devices, it is rarely even mentioned even when they do have a microSD slot.

I don’t have children but I still pay for the schools. The idea that your tax dollars should only get spent on something you use personally is laughable.

Where is your house? Those rates are not typical nationwide but I know a general contractor who is involved in construction on the islands near Bellingham and the rates there are like what you describe.

I agree that in my experience a lot of contractors would rather deal with cash and it isn’t exactly a secret why. I got a significant all cash discount on a new roof.

Certainly the Apple cables aren’t quality. Or perhaps the better word is durable. The jacketing on the cables is a joke and gets worn through by a swift breeze.

Third-party cables, for whatever connector, you get what you pay for. Is it a shame I have a good number of lightning cables that I will have no use for in the near future? Yes.

I also have countless other cables that I longer have use for. I still haven’t been able to fully remove micro-usb from my life but we’re getting close and I’m glad for it. It would be much nicer to only have one type of cable in my bag, that’s for sure.

The impact to Apple’s bottom line is very different. Maintaining regional SKUs for hardware would be much more expensive for Apple than just acquiescing to the mandate. Software doesn’t have nearly the same issues as physical goods when it comes to splitting feature by region, especially considering the goal will be to keep things more advantageous for apple in as many regions as possible for as long as possible. They can always flip the switch if/when they have to.

700 million in cash is a massive warchest to be sitting on. I’m still doubtful on their path to profitability but having looked at their financials that are readily available, I’m actually more optimistic about their long term prospects. Absolutely sucks for anyone losing their job but assuming they actually deliver on the claims made here, it is an entirely reasonable severance package to me.

They’re not wrong and it’s a timing thing. It isn’t as if this is a new message for them. But a big ad spend reinforcing their talking points during an election year is how they try to move the needle to protect their interests politically.

As someone who uses an iPhone SE, I have to disagree. I have a small phone with incredible internals at a price that can’t be be beat. You can go cheap as you want to on android for sure but you’re going to pay the price one way or the other. Having helped support people works budget android phones, it’s painful. I don’t use my phone like most people, I would never watch a video on my phone or use it extensively for general purpose computing by choice, but those budget android phones are disgustingly slow and stuffed to the gills with bloat.

The only pain point with my current phone is the camera is still effectively 10 year old hardware. I would like a nicer camera and I could probably find that on a similarly priced and sized android phone if I really wanted to I’ll admit. That said, I’m worried what the next generation of SE will end up being. I’m going to guess it’ll be physically bigger and I’ll have to say goodbye to TouchID (which I vastly prefer to FaceID). I love this phone otherwise and am in no hurry to replace it. Outside of the camera, the parts of its design that are stuck in the past are the things I love about it.

Flagship android phones from every major vendor are priced to compete with iPhones though and let’s not pretend otherwise. You can spend more on an android phone now than an iPhone if you’re so inclined.