3 ms·
Translation: you have no coherent response to what I said, and don't like that, so you figured a bit of snark might recover some dignity. It's better to simply
by samatman 3y ago
Translation: you have no coherent response to what I said, and don't like that, so you figured a bit of snark might recover some dignity. It's better to simply not reply.
- FirmwareBurner 3y agoI gave you my argument in detail above with sources that companies routinely collude in anti-consumer ways, but you decided to strick your fingers in your ears and sing "lalala I don't believe you". Therefore I have no more replies for you to protect my sanity. Feel free to believe whatever you want to believe, just leve me be, i have no duty to waste my time to change your opinion of something you're fixated on.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- robertlagrant 3y ago> with sources that companies routinely collude in anti-consumer ways Was this your link that said "there was a cartel in an industry once"? That doesn't seem to demonstrate a general issue.
- samatman 3y agoThe link that says "although there is vigorous disagreement about whether 1000 days was a good technical standard or a case of planned obsolescence, a cartel did exist, and there are sources which say it was to use planned obsolescence to sell more bulbs". Inconveniently, longer-lasting bulbs emit less light, and more heat. If you remember the heat of a 100W incandescent bulb, perhaps you might see the fire hazard in encouraging bulb companies to compete on the basis of bulb life. But no matter. This definitely demonstrates that there's a brake pad cartel, right now, doing the same thing. By implication, you see.
- robertlagrant 3y agoI think you replied to the wrong person.
- samatman 3y agoNot precisely, but I was agreeing with you, although I see how that might have been unclear.