Their stance is that you personally are banned for life from subs regardless of which account. Would be a real shame if your IP got changed between accounts, your cookies and local storage got cleared, and you never mentioned the old account again. You could accidentally post in a sub you got banned from, and they wouldn’t be able to helpfully re-ban you from the sub!
If you were still trying to spend time on reddit in the first place at least.
Been on Linux for 15+ years and on graphene for about a year. It’s fine. Keep a backup (quarantined) Windows box for games but don’t use it much.
Honestly, not to blame the public, but people were sitting here for the last decade going, don’t like being censored? Don’t use Google/Facebook/whatever. Don’t like being tracked across the internet? Don’t use Google/Facebook/whatever. And everyone kept using it. As for streaming services, I mean, if you don’t want monopolistic pricing power, abolish copyright/DMCA. We complain constantly about the consequences of these big corps but society keeps religiously buying shit from them or participating in their services. Just like complaining constantly about global warming but driving your car 3 miles to the store to get a 1L bottle of water. We set up these structures and put people in these positions where they can exploit you, then act surprised when they do, and we have an excuse for why we think every individual part of it needs to stay exactly the same.
OK, maybe to blame the public a little.
I’ve done it a fair bit and it’s actually pretty painless. If you know how to use vim you save a ton of keystrokes, which makes a big difference on mobile.
…ssh and vim?
They’re both very complex so it’s understandable people would have different experiences. In general I’ve found GCP fairly straightforward, with shitty documentation, generally good support of fundamentals, great k8s support, good prices, fairly modern APIs, and relatively low feature coverage. AWS more built out, awful & totally inconsistent UI, better feature coverage, higher prices, and some pretty janky XML APIs if memory serves.
Honestly, it’s not as bad as AWS or Azure. Plus if you use k8s it’s first-in-class support, since Google came up with k8s. There is a fairly steep learning curve though.
If you’re deploying anything in cloud infra you need to make sure it’s portable between providers. Vendor lock-in is a big avoidable no-no.
That’s better than “all media is run by the Fuhrer” I suppose, but probably still preferable for people to have the choice of which to support.
There is something wrong with advertising in and of itself. Imagine a sphere of all information available to humans, and inside that sphere there’s a corruption of information that’s deceitful, self-promoting for its originators, in excess of what people actually need to know about specific companies or products, and based on manipulation techniques and de-facto brainwashing. This twists decision-making for the entire society.
The only defense is that it’s a “necessary evil” because of the perverse economic structures in our society.
And P.S., the fact something’s been around for a long time is not an ethical defense, and people “unreasonably susceptible to suggestion” (i.e. influenced by ads) are a staggering % of the popularity, probably a majority.
All journalism becomes volunteer work, running off of optional donations, which seems unlikely :D
It’s not quite that simple with PBS or NPR, but that’s the basic idea. Open public funding with no political or corporate control sounds like the safest bet. It’s as viable as people deciding to support it.
Not sure why you’d think “publicly funded” would seem like the “optimal” option. Same thing structurally as “state-run media”, just friendlier phrasing. If we had direct democracy or something, that might be fine, but the fact that it has to run through politicians and bureaucrats with their own interests/agendas, that completely changes the picture. If you have that federally funded in the U.S., that basically just tucks under the executive branch like almost everything else, meaning it’s just managed by the President, with basically only a paper tiger of regulations preventing interference in place.
Occam’s razor says the more simple/plausible explanation, that a huge increase in the monetary supply causing higher prices through supply and demand, is about a thousand times more plausible than tens of thousands of corporations simultaneously deciding to coordinate to fix prices despite that it’s in each of their best interests individually to break with that scheme. With no actual evidence of a concerted attempt across the entire economy to fix prices (not to be confused with a couple corporations having board meetings where someone bragged about raising prices).
Or, in simple terms - it’s not that every single other good in the entire economy has suddenly become worth more as the result of some overarching conspiracy. It’s that they printed a bunch of money and it’s now worth less.
I would recommend anyone who still believes the “greedflation” thing spends an hour reading some articles critical of the theory. Not really looking for a debate about it tbh.
Price gouging coincidentally at the same time across the entire economy, soon after an enormous increase in the monetary supply.
A—Aurora Borealis? At this time of year! At this time of day! In this part of the country! Localized entirely within your kitchen?!?
“Mastodon never caught on in the interwebs because all the nobodies see themselves as temporarily embarrassed influencers” - John Steinbeck
Can you actually prove that? Seems suspect because usually partisan BS remains in Congress, while tiny administrative details like that get written by agency bureaucrats, who in general could care less about said BS.
How and why would that result in a website having limited hours of service?
Fast food chains aren’t your friend