jtbayly

3 ms·

1.
by jtbayly 5d ago
On one of my machines, I don’t know if I could even make it fit. So it’s a no-brainer to not update on that one, if they are going to force an extra 14GB download on me.
2.
by jtbayly 5d ago
Perhaps eventually. I know I’m in a “closed ecosystem,” and that removes a fair bit of choice in a variety of places. But Apple is known to walk bad decisions back at times. This update is an example, with liquid glass. Another recent one w
3.
by jtbayly 5d ago
I cancelled my Spotify subscription when they wouldn’t stop trying to advertise podcasts to me.
4.
by jtbayly 5d ago
Yeah, I’ll wait to update my computers until Apple gives us an actual choice.
5.
by jtbayly 6d ago
It’s actually mentioned in the article.
6.
by jtbayly 11d ago
> even if 90% are cisgendered (I didnt look up the real stat) The real stat is much higher than 90%, in case you were curious.
7.
by jtbayly 12d ago
Thank you for sticking with me. I was still at a loss for the answer to how it could take 11k vs 28 years or so. I asked AI. lol The thing I didn’t realize is the massive difference between 99.999% vs 99.9999% of the speed of light. I took
8.
by jtbayly 14d ago
> Of course that as you get closer to C, the traveling object will experience time dilation (relative to observer), so the time passed will be less. At 99.999% C, the traveler would take ~11,000 years to arrive to Andromeda. When you say
9.
by jtbayly 15d ago
So the question becomes where does the 11k come in? It was just wrong?
10.
by jtbayly 15d ago
> “At 99.999% C, the traveler would take ~11,000 years to arrive to Andromeda.” So presumably this means 11k years from an earth point of view? But the traveler would still be alive and a very short time would have passed for him?
11.
by jtbayly 16d ago
I’m confused. Is it 11k years to the closest galaxy at the speed of light, or somehow accessible in a human lifetime?
12.
by jtbayly 17d ago
On the contrary, this is very strong steering in a prompt!
13.
by jtbayly 20d ago
Which means no sleep or HDMI yet.
14.
by jtbayly 21d ago
You are confused. Yes, lots of people say that here, but the intention is almost never to justify immoral behavior. Rather the goal is to delegitimize capitalism by blaming it for the immoral behavior.
15.
by jtbayly 23d ago
They both communicate the same thing because they both start with “buy.” They communicate Ownership and collapse to the same thing to a normal consumer: implied ownership of the game. Insisting that the ownership is of the license and it
16.
by jtbayly 24d ago
The return policies are indeed meant to be used the way you find problematic. You can buy a computer to use while yours is being repaired. Then return it. Employees will instruct you to do this.
17.
by jtbayly 25d ago
Fine, let’s take it for granted that you don’t want to all of it. But the clear implication of saying that people aren’t paying their fair share is that they generally should. So your ideal may not be 0, but it is (even by your own anal
18.
by jtbayly 25d ago
No you said, "You'll know they're paying their fair share when the arbitrage actually stops.” It might not have been intentional, but you communicated clearly that people should be charged more until they are unwilling to wor
19.
by jtbayly 25d ago
So what? You didn’t say they should pay as much as they are willing to pay. You said they should pay. They are paying! Your new goal is that nobody can afford to work in the city except residents, but that is an objectively dumb idea, and
20.
by jtbayly 25d ago
Oh, I know they are doing fine without me. lol But if you don’t like what they are doing, vote with your wallet. In this case, there actually are choices, which is nice.
21.
by jtbayly 25d ago
They already pay substantial taxes out of their income to the city they work, in most places. They already are paying for access.
22.
by jtbayly 25d ago
I canceled my subscription and moved to Apple Music
23.
by jtbayly 28d ago
It is word salad. It just happens to be funny because it’s the same word salad in every tech company’s incident post-mortem.
24.
by jtbayly 28d ago
Oh, yeah, no. I’m not providing my webpage in the EU. I’m providing it on the internet. I let people create accounts, so there might be some personal data. Depends on what the GDPR considers personal. I have no idea. Couldn’t care less. I’m
25.
by jtbayly 28d ago
Have you ever heard of Amazon? Kindle?
26.
by jtbayly 1mo ago
It’s very hard to prove, yes. But you need to deal with the association with SDAM, and the differences in outcomes on the https://aphantasia.com/study/vviq .
27.
by jtbayly 1mo ago
I’ve got a bunch of sites that can be viewed from (checks notes) the internet. If people in Europe don’t like that, they can block it, or choose not to visit it. In the meantime, you’ve proven exactly what I first said, which is that th
28.
by jtbayly 1mo ago
They obviously don’t have a valid claim to be able to tell everyone who wants to put a website on the internet that they have to do it the EU way, which is what we’re actually talking about.
29.
by jtbayly 1mo ago
That’s pretty funny to say when the EU claims GDPR applies worldwide.
30.
by jtbayly 1mo ago
Makes sense. I am still getting a feel for the different levels of these processors.

More ›