jjulius

42 ms·

721.
by jjulius 2y ago
>You are letting these companies push you around. Not really. I pick my battles - there are places I fight back, and other places where I may opt not to pick a fight for the sake of convenience. But just because I'm willing to pay a
722.
by jjulius 2y ago
>You can stick that. That's super kind of you, thanks for the level-headed discussion. >What if the "instant" option was $25? What if it was $250? >Your logic falls down completely. Sort of, I suppose. Again, not say
723.
by jjulius 2y ago
>No, the airline did that when they didn't seat the family together. The airline gave them the option of sitting together, and OP chose the option that will inconvenience others. >If a bank has so many convoluted steps it takes m
724.
by jjulius 2y ago
I don't think there's another decision to be made - I'm fine with them making the decision, especially because they're self-aware (hence my saying that I appreciate them admitting that fact). - OP made the decision to pu
725.
by jjulius 2y ago
For the third or forth time in this thread, I've never argued against the fact that the root cause of this all is the airlines being extortionate. I was clearly (at least I figured it was, my bad I suppose) discussing a reaction to a
726.
by jjulius 2y ago
I never said that it's OP's fault that airlines don't seat families together, I just highlighted the impact of the decision OP made in that moment. As I've said elsewhere in this thread, I (as a parent of kids) am comp
727.
by jjulius 2y ago
I don't disagree with any of this, nor did I, to clarify, imply that OP is the root cause.
728.
by jjulius 2y ago
Completely agreed, and just to clarify, at no point have I argued in favor of this law. But in a situation such as this, whether or not I agree with what an airline is doing, I'll typically take the path of least resistance for me and
729.
by jjulius 2y ago
That's there for people who need to deal with getting strollers collapsed and ready to be stored with the luggage, and kids safely in their seats. OP's method extends into the normal boarding process, because you have to wait for
730.
by jjulius 2y ago
I appreciate that you acknowledge the inconvenience to others by using the word chutzpah. Your method slows down, and complicates, the boarding process for everyone else on the plane. Everyone's different, but with my kids, I'd mu
731.
by jjulius 2y ago
Yeah, that's kinda what I was getting at. The way this talks about "impeding world records" makes it sound like they're expected to be broken frequently. If that's the case, to me, it kinda cheapens world records -
732.
by jjulius 2y ago
Right. They're not a competitor, they're a "competitor".
733.
by jjulius 2y ago
I guess, at least to me, there's a bit of a difference between "optimizing for peak performance in order to best your opponent(s)" and "expecting to break world records". /shrug
734.
by jjulius 2y ago
This is entirely just my own opinion... I completely understand why you might not want a slow pool in a competition like this, but the emphasis on it being "not ideal for record setting" is weird to me. I guess I just don't u
735.
by jjulius 2y ago
>What is wrong with them? I vouched for this comment. I did so because I see this user posting very consistently, in spite of having been very obviously shadowbanned for a long time now, and I just can't help but wonder the same thi
736.
by jjulius 2y ago
>SEO will be replaced by cold hard cash, favors, and backroom deals Maybe it's my pessimistic nature, but it's garbage either way to me - backroom deals in your scenario, or the SEO-gameified garbage we currently have.
737.
by jjulius 2y ago
Yes.
738.
by jjulius 2y ago
As a resident of Oregon, I am asking moreso from the perspective of ignorance and wanting to know more about this, so I'd love some insight here. From what I can tell, the following is what was "banned" or, in other words, im
739.
by jjulius 2y ago
To be fair, Reddit has plenty of astroturfing, too.
740.
by jjulius 2y ago
The way I read it, is that they admitted to what you accused them of - over-reliance on smartphones. What else do you want them to say?
741.
by jjulius 2y ago
>No. >Something is wrong with this person's brain. I hope we're all self-aware enough to know that we're making these comments on a website that was ostensibly designed to support the industry that is/has been resp
742.
by jjulius 2y ago
> And if the right wins, then he has bribed them and will get preferential treatment. That it would largely be about Musk winning, rather than doing all that he can to support global EV adoption, would absolutely track for him.
743.
by jjulius 2y ago
tl;dr - nothing is perfect.
744.
by jjulius 2y ago
Case in point, I suppose. Oh well. Edit: Please, keep editing your posts. And also deleting your other crummy response about me being "attention seeking". Really not sure why you feel the need to continue to be an asshole.
745.
by jjulius 2y ago
;)
746.
by jjulius 2y ago
I don't really see anything wrong with saying "yikes" to someone who is needlessly over the top with calling someone an "entitled asshole". It's a bit sad to see someone so rude or angry over something meant so
747.
by jjulius 2y ago
>The problem here... ... is that there is no problem. They're just being silly.
748.
by jjulius 2y ago
... it's tongue-in-cheek. Yikes.
749.
by jjulius 2y ago
Yeah, this is exactly my takeaway, as well. Whole bunch of folk in these comments are taking this way too seriously lol. Relax, enjoy it for what it is. I chuckled.
750.
by jjulius 2y ago
>The owner is dreaming if they think that domain is worth $10 million. I think you're taking that a weeeeee bit too seriously. One gets the sense that they just like having the domain and don't really care about the offers. May

More ›