syntactic-sugar

24 ms·

1. 1.▲
   by syntactic-sugar 5y ago

   I'm still not convinced that's a bad thing. Does this not ensure profitable sites will be around because they provide enough value to their users to charge a fee, everything else will be stuff like passion projects. I really just
2. 2.▲
   by syntactic-sugar 5y ago

   - FLoC is still far better than third party cookies I'd take issue with 'far' better, and it has the additional problem of turning the privacy issue in to a moving target. How long did it take to get the wider public and legi
3. 3.▲
   by syntactic-sugar 5y ago

   God I was looking for this. Went through the exact same thing. Lots of people on their forums complaining about it too. Put me off ever going near Adobe again.
4. 4.▲
   by syntactic-sugar 5y ago

   Absolutely. It's not a $52/month rate because it's not 52 dollars per month. The moment you click that buy button you're on the hook for $624. IMO A less deceptive label would be $624, billed in monthly installments.
5. 5.▲
   by syntactic-sugar 6y ago

   Artists are not entitled to make a living, and certainly not at the cost of ever encroaching adtech. "Just don't buy the tv" would be a valid objection if the fact that advertising was included in the set was made abundantly