I wear a set of these every day, for hours at a time. I started writing what I thought would be a concise comment that turned out to be not concise. I tried to break it up because no one likes a wall of text.

To sum up, I’ll be buying another pair when my current ones kick the bucket, and another after that.

Problem -

Reaction -

Solution

Evil was a stretch, sure. Though while I appreciate the concept of not attributing malice to what incompetence explains, I think that needs to be couched by whether or not a profit is being turned by the action.

Someone? I’m talking about having a corporation admit it’s own wrongdoing, not a specific individual.

You just know someone in the chain wanted to be able to say, ‘we were the first’, then they got fact checked and had to add in that qualifier of commercially available ground station.

Surely any rational individual already acknowledges that subject as lunacy. The segment of people that after seeing the joke would fall victim to the conspiracy is bound to be smaller than the segment that find it mildly amusing.

While the company admitted no wrongdoing, it must pay $1.7 million in civil penalties, as well as $277,251 to cover investigation costs as well as to “support future enforcement of consumer protection laws.”

Why is it we allow these companies to pretend they did no evil? The penalty should have been a couple orders of magnitude higher, and they should have had to admit what they did. Obviously we don’t live in a world where both those things would happen, but we don’t even get one of them?

They surely made more than two million doing this and so the fine is meaningless. The real way to make it meaningful would be to force the admission of guilt, and then use the admission as justification to stop them from buying out the competition for 18 billion dollars.

Look how they deceived their customers, good thing they can do it to even more customers now!

Damn, no one got the joke about the two top commenters in the thread becoming the same entity?

Oh well, it was pretty low effort.

Pretty big thought you’ve got there.

Have you considered joining forces with another influential thought leader such as @oakey66@lemm.ee? Together you could better serve the commenting community across the platform.

Is it just me or does that bike have a kink in its neck?

When I wrote that it was taking Boeing at its word, I was leaning more into a possibility of leadership changing their minds.

All I was really getting at by commenting about the contract was that corporate greed exists

The point I was trying to convey is that companies are run by people and people are corruptable.

I’m of the opinion there are no lines a company won’t cross if there’s a dollar to be made

I even said:

You’re correct to say there’s no reason to think any specific contact would be violated.

And yet you continue to harp on about this, and now tell me to go do some reading? Read the comments you’re replying to.

You haven’t conceded a single thing or even mentioned any of the rebuttals I have made to you points, and you continue to attack what I have repeatedly stated as only being my opinions.

I should have trusted my instinct beforehand. This isn’t a discussion. This is a waste of effort.

I guess the point I made three times didn’t get across to you, did it.

I’m a third party in this chat, not Anivia@feddit.org.

Your initial comment here was pointing out that a component of a computer build is as expensive as an entire console. Valid point, though it does ignore that the component you had in mind is superior to what Sony’s put into their machine. It’s not really an apples to apples comparison. More like an apple from the grocery compared to picking a basket of apples from an orchard.

You seem to be pointing out that higher performance per dollar is possible with a high end computer. This is correct.

Anivia on the other hand was only saying that for the same money or less as a Playstation 5 Pro, you can get more performance by spending your dollars on a computer instead of a console. This is correct.

You two seem to be saying the same thing: Sony’s console is overpriced for what it is, and a better experience can be had going with a pc.

Way to move the goal post on your argument.

I was thinking the same.

If the age verification responsibility lies with the companies, it would mean each one spends as little as possible and we end up with a dozen poorly implemented databases, all ripe for a breach. If the government handles it, that’s better I suppose because one system could be made more robust, but that’s a big expense.

I suppose the companies that would need it could be taxed to cover the costs of this system, but you know how companies love being taxed. I’m sure smarter people than me are working on it though.

Ah so that’s the line you think they won’t cross? Glad we were able to narrow that down.

I’m of the opinion there are no lines a company won’t cross if there’s a dollar to be made, and there’s decades of evidence this is the case. It wasn’t that long ago that big business would hire people to give a beat down to protesting workers.

It’s not my goal to change the minds of people online. Ultimately this conversation has boiled down to me having an opinion based on actions I have seen taken against workers, and you believing there is a line in the sand that “cannot” be crossed because the company is smart enough not to.

We aren’t getting anywhere by continuing.

I can appreciate the argument that’s being made to counter this. That enacting such rulings would drive the affected children to lesser known pockets of the internet. However I think that’s a red herring by the industry, since that always happens anyway.

A new platform pops up and people go try it. It’s only a matter of time before there’s a new Tiktok in town. They will spin up and die off faster than legislation can keep up. Seems to me the industry wants to keep the children for the data, and the revenue that comes with it.

Something does need to be done though. Our minds are becoming mushy tomatoes and social media is partly to blame. A better solution might be education of course, but I’m not sure what that would look like, or if it would be effective unless integrated into curriculums quite early on.

Strikes me as fishy that the finance ministry went to court with Apple to say ‘no don’t pay tax’.

If they don’t want the tax, have the cheque made out to the EU.

Stop signs in general aren’t the best solution. So long as we have them though, a rolling stop is the way to go when on two wheels.

I haven’t looked at any numbers, but surely if we taxed billionaires enough to turn them back into millionaires, we’d probably not have to tax anyone else at all.