croon

61 ms·

811.
by croon 6y ago
> Is the grocery store "double dipping" because it takes money from you to buy the food, and also takes money from companies to place products in special promotional end-of-aisle displays? Back when people bought physical newsp
812.
by croon 6y ago
Doesn't matter, you can reduce it down to the wallet. (At least) someone has (or at least has at one point had) access to it.
813.
by croon 6y ago
You mean on their product over every other product on the appstore? Compared to the appstore over.... nothing else on that platform. One is profit from a product, one is profit from capture.
814.
by croon 6y ago
AFAIK Fortnite is not available on Steam (or elsewhere).
815.
by croon 6y ago
GP suggested that they already get paid for that service, and that they're double dipping. You're simply stating that they should get paid, which they would be in either case. Apple is charging what they are because they can (obvi
816.
by croon 6y ago
LoL: Wild Rift is surprisingly competent, and matches last around 15 minutes, speaking as a (former) dota player who hasn't played the regular LoL.
817.
by croon 6y ago
> You disproved my point with occasional articles showing CNN trashing Fox News (and vice versa; one still doesn't appear to link to the other, which is what I actually said): is that an example of them fact-checking each other, or
818.
by croon 6y ago
Or have a tiebreaker. It would be testing something slightly different (more endurance) than what they'd train for, but there would likely be an easier call the second time, statistically if nothing else.
819.
by croon 6y ago
https://www.google.com/search?q=site%3Afoxnews.com+cnn https://www.google.com/search?q=site%3Acnn.com+foxnews I refute your supposition with extremely clear evidence that competitors have no problem mention
820.
by croon 6y ago
The ones I'm referring to always provide both their rationale and their sources for their verdict. It's trivial to verify in most cases. > Nobody - because fact-checking [of the type under discussion] is essentially an infotain
821.
by croon 6y ago
> I just think they are similar situations. The old controllers of information are being challenged by new technologies. Political forces are involved. It’s very similar to the 1600s. The situations differ in that the church was top-down
822.
by croon 6y ago
> My point is that technology leads to change. Sure. > I guess if you were the Catholic Church in 1650, you’d be complaining about all this new ‘misinformation’ being printed by Gutenberg presses and promulgated by Protestant preacher
823.
by croon 6y ago
I don't understand your comment. The comment you were responding to was also describing an observable phenomenon (regardless of intent). You were putting these against each other and ascribing intent (and attacking that) to one, but no
824.
by croon 6y ago
> A lot of our fundamental disagreements are about subjective values, and we distract ourselves by thinking the issue is actually about facts. Originally yes, and if we could all agree on that separation we would probably have an easier
825.
by croon 6y ago
I don't know where I myself land, but free will gets more interesting in situations like: * I see a piece of litter on the sidewalk and a garbage can on the other side of the road. Do I pick it up or not. Why/why not? * I never fe
826.
by croon 6y ago
Why is fact-checking never attacked with oceans of examples of bad fact-checks? Fact-checkers as they exist right now are, with extremely few exceptions, exemplary. I would love to be proven wrong, but never have been. Edit: I can accept an
827.
by croon 6y ago
What if you are trying to build a system you would be willing to fill any role in, but your opponent knows the current one is very lopsided and they already have a favorable role?
828.
by croon 6y ago
> Constant propaganda by who? Where? And for the last 50-100 years? > That sounds absurd and conspiratorial. Also: > Not the OP, but this just refers to the gradual erosion of many institutions in American society. Universities, me
829.
by croon 6y ago
> It has to be, if the message is that obscured threat is worse than the overt. The ranking doesn't matter. One is a fictional alien, the other is human interaction. If the alien virus is worse, does that negate any and all (lesser
830.
by croon 6y ago
The obscured threat doesn't have to be worse than the overt one for a parable to be applicable. In fact, almost any allegory deliberately uses fantastical imagery to illustrate a point, because it's easier to point to something wh
831.
by croon 6y ago
> Movies like The Thing, Terminator, Alien, Aliens, etc. Don't really have a political message other than some vague politics as window dressing. https://www.esquire.com/entertainment/movies/a34518538/
832.
by croon 6y ago
I disagree, I wasn't stating it to be reductive, I was claiming that you can't find an IMDB top 250/Criterion collection/whatever fancy list of movies you prefer that doesn't have political statements. It makes them
833.
by croon 6y ago
Fair enough, everything old is new.
834.
by croon 6y ago
All culture has always been political, the only thing that's changed is people taking offense at it.
835.
by croon 6y ago
> ... or capital that would otherwise have been used elsewhere. Or not used. Throughout all of this, I don't generally disagree with your reasoning, but you're basing it all on assumptions I reject.
836.
by croon 6y ago
> They do get the money. But the world hasn't become any more productive; the number of goods and services being produced is still the same. So when they spend that money and consume goods and services, someone else must necessarily
837.
by croon 6y ago
Por que no los dos?
838.
by croon 6y ago
> If you force a bunch of rich people to spend more than they would have, the Fed will just take that money straight back out of the economy. So if they go on more vacations, buy a flashy car, have more parties, you are saying that the F
839.
by croon 6y ago
> If anything I think we should encourage rich people to give their money away (even if only to their children) since wealth consumed by a broader number of people leads to more happiness than if it's all consumed by one person. It&
840.
by croon 6y ago
Probably because luck based games are incredibly easy to setup and play for new players. I assume a lot of Chutes/Snakes & Ladders have sold as well.

More ›