AeonFelis
@AeonFelis@lemmy.world
- Comment on That's... normal 3 days ago:
Maybe you haven’t met the right cream yet?
- Comment on That's... normal 3 days ago:
No. You love cream. That’s a different thing.
- Comment on ‘Do not pet’: Why are robot dogs patrolling Mar-A-Lago? 3 days ago:
These are not good boys
- Comment on On bugs... 1 week ago:
Looney Tunes fans looking at Bugs all day
- Comment on the emperor 1 week ago:
No. Japan is a democracy now. This lil guy is just a figurehead.
- Comment on Feds Say You Don’t Have a Right to Check Out Retro Video Games Like Library Books 3 weeks ago:
You wouldn’t download a book?
- Comment on Blessica Blimpson 3 weeks ago:
Blanta’s Blittle Blelper
- Comment on No excuse 4 weeks ago:
I’d argue you still have a lot more visibility than if you were facing the other way. And you have to slide out a lot less to get a good-enough line of sight.
- Comment on No excuse 4 weeks ago:
How many kilometers is your hood?
Wait, sorry. If cars are that big around you, you must be American. Let me rephrase: how many Washington Monuments is your hood?
- Comment on No excuse 4 weeks ago:
Looking at the road, that number seems about right.
- Comment on Consume 1 month ago:
Well, you don’t eat swords for their calories. You eat them for the iron.
- Comment on Men Harassed A Woman In A Driverless Waymo, Trapping Her In Traffic 1 month ago:
- Comment on Effort require Effort 1 month ago:
Okay, but then you won’t be commuting at the same time as everyone else!
- Comment on 👣👣👣 1 month ago:
In other words - like 99% of the laws: good
publicityintentions meets reality. - Comment on Important information 1 month ago:
Well, obviously you have to remove the slots before eating the soup. You guys really don’t know anything, do you?
- Comment on The mark 1 month ago:
Found it. It’s from 7 months ago, so I assume that cube is long gone?
- Comment on The mark 1 month ago:
The cat in the back is blurry. Do you have a better picture of it?
- Comment on #goals 2 months ago:
If he think something doesn’t matter just because the people involved are dead, maybe history is not the right academic field for him.
- Comment on Cords 2 months ago:
Thanks. Fixed.
- Comment on Cords 2 months ago:
You have been warned but you needed proof
You hanged some lighting on the roof
The spirit of the holiday overthrew you
You climbed up on a kitchen chain
You plugged the cord. It zapped your hair
And from your lips you trembled Hallelujah - Comment on If "Master/Slave" terminology in computing sounds bad now, why not change it to "Dom/Sub"? 2 months ago:
I vote for “OF-Model/Simp”.
- Comment on Toot toot 2 months ago:
- Comment on ISP to Supreme Court: We shouldn’t have to disconnect users accused of piracy 2 months ago:
I won’t argue that corporations wouldn’t steal other people’s work given the chance, but being able to do this is hardly worth the cost of not having copyrights on their own material. A Disney/Pixar/DreamWorks/etc. movie is not a stand-alone product - it’s mainly a feature-length commercial for a franchise. No copyrights means that the corporation doesn’t get revenue from the the merchandise created and sold by third parties.
- Comment on Consumer, we have detected that you are above the poverty line. The 99¢ price printed on this Arizona tea can only applies to those below the poverty line. Your total comes to $3.67. 2 months ago:
Charging the poor more is, first and foremost, stupid. Giving them bad products and/or services that will cost them more in the long run? That I can see. But you never want to charge them more upfront. You’ll always want to charge the rich more, because the rich have more money and are more willing to spend it (when it benefits them), and you want them to give you that money.
Joel Spolsky wrote a great post about this two decades ago (and it’s still relevant today). The idea is as follows:
Lets say you have two potential customers - one rich who can afford to buy your product for $2 and one poor who can only afford to buy it for $1. If you charge $1 you’ll be able to sell it to both of them and get $2. If you charge $2 you’ll only sell to the rich - also getting $2.
Joel says that if you find a way (e.g. - by creating different versions) to sell it to the rich customer for $2 and the poor customer for $1 - you’ll get $3. Which is more than $2.
You, on the other hand, suggest that it’s going to get offered to the rich customer for $1 and the poor customer for $2. But then the poor customer won’t be able to afford it. They won’t be it or maybe even steal it - either way you won’t get $2 from them. You’ll only get the $1 from the rich customer.
$1 is less than $3. It’s even less than $1. If you want to earn money - this is the worst outcome. Why do you think capitalists hate the poor more than they love money?
- Comment on Infamous $30 Logitech F710 called out in $50M lawsuit over Titan sub implosion 3 months ago:
Movie pitch - to pay all its lawsuits, OceanGate lunches a desperate mission to the wreck of the San José.
- Comment on Logitech has ‘no plans’ for a subscription mouse 3 months ago:
And feel old? No thanks!
- Comment on Logitech has ‘no plans’ for a subscription mouse 3 months ago:
Which was only 10 years ago.
- Comment on Some subreddits could be paywalled, hints Reddit CEO 3 months ago:
- Comment on Some subreddits could be paywalled, hints Reddit CEO 3 months ago:
Medium’s paywall gets lots of hatred, but at least they use it to pay the authors of the paywalled posts, so it kind of makes sense - you pay to consume content and get payed to create content. But Reddit is a forum, not a blogging platform - the separation between content creators and content consumers is much more blurred. If a subreddit gets paywalled, then the Redditors who create the content there - both the posts and the comments - will need to pay. Which will instantly ruin these subreddits when most of the posters will just take their posts elsewhere.
Did Reddit decide to imitate the business model of academic journals?
- Comment on xkcd #2968: University Age 3 months ago:
That’s your solution for everything!
