NateNate60
@NateNate60@lemmy.world
- Comment on How come there is enough asphalt for speed bumps, but not enough to fill potholes ? 14 hours ago:
It is not because of a shortage of asphalt that potholes exist. It is a shortage of attention and money to fill said potholes.
- Comment on Are US governors allowed to maintain their own foreign policy and relations, without control of the president or federal government? 1 day ago:
There is no limit in the Constitution that prohibits individual US states from exchanging representatives with foreign countries or from expressing or sending support to them. However, there are some caveats, of course, and it’s a very nuanced area of law that has interesting implications:
- Accepting formal diplomatic representatives from another power is deemed under international law to mean recognising the independence and sovereignty of the power whose representatives you are accepting. Which essentially precludes formal diplomatic ties from consideration. This is why the US doesn’t accept diplomats from the Republic of China (a.k.a. Taiwan) and refuses official Taiwanese diplomatic and service passports, but is more than happy to accept “unofficial” representatives.
- Any representatives sent would not have the power to contract treaties as US states are not competent under US law to enter into treaties or make any other binding obligation to other countries. This is problematic because that means they can’t even do as much as rent an office space in another country without the involvement of the US federal government.
- The primary reasons that a country might consider hosting a diplomatic mission of a foreign power is so that they can (1) complain to the ambassador about that foreign power doing things that they don’t like, (2) so that the foreign power can issue passports and visas within the host country, (3) so that consular services can be provided by the foreign power to its citizens or subjects living within the host country, and (4) negotiate treaties. Since US states don’t really do anything abroad that can’t be handled or complained about through the US Department of State, and because US states don’t issue passports or visas, and because consular services to US citizens is already provided through the diplomatic missions of the United States, it is unnecessary for any country to consider hosting a US state diplomatic mission.
- Comment on Plan N 3 weeks ago:
You know things have gone to shit when suddenly Hitler of all people makes a good point
- Comment on [deleted] 3 weeks ago:
Cool post but how is this a shitpost
- Comment on Benefit cheats could lose driving licences in anti-fraud drive 5 weeks ago:
Why not a community order?
This is such a strange punishment which is completely unconnected with the offence in question.
- Comment on Do the ultra-rich consume popular media? 3 months ago:
The fact that Musk and friends are always complaining about it seems to indicate that they are.
- Comment on Is the Robert Reich mastodon account actually run by Robert Reich? 3 months ago:
Well, Trump seemingly had the time to send out a hundred tweets a week while still being president of the United States so I wouldn’t discount it.
- Submitted 3 months ago to nostupidquestions@lemmy.world | 4 comments
- Comment on your mom falls significantly faster than g 3 months ago:
So obviously I ended up in the middle of this bell curve. How would that cause the perception of the ball’s acceleration to differ?
- Comment on Federated social media from before it was cool 4 months ago:
It’s not really like they were evil about it though. Google attracted customers through its huge (at the time) 1 GB email storage space, which at the time, was unbelievably generous and also impressive in that it was offered for free. Outlook (Hotmail at the time) also drew in customers by offering the service for free, anywhere in the world, without needing to sign up for Internet service. Remember, at the time, e-mail was a service that was bundled with your Internet service provider.
Into the mid-2000s and 2010s, the way that Gmail and Outlook kept customers was through bundle deals for enterprise customers and improvements to their webmail offerings. Gmail had (and arguably, still has) one of the best webmail clients available anywhere. Outlook was not far behind, and it was also usually bundled with enterprise Microsoft Office subscriptions, so most companies just decided, “eh, why not”. It was at that point that Microsoft Outlook (the mail client, not the e-mail service) was the “gold standard” for desktop mail clients, at least according to middle-aged office workers who barely knew anything about e-mail to begin with. Today, the G-Suite, as it is called, is one of the most popular enterprise software suites, perhaps second only to Microsoft Office. Most people learned how to use e-mail and the Internet in the 2000s and 2010s through school or work.
You have to compare the offerings of Google and Microsoft with their competitors. AOL mail was popular but the Internet service provided by the same company was not. When people quit AOL Internet service, many switched e-mail providers as well, thinking that if they did not maintain their AOL subscription, they would lose access to their mailbox as well.
Google and Microsoft didn’t “kill” the decentralised e-mail of yesteryear. They beat it fair and square by offering a superior product. If you’re trying to pick an e-mail service today, Gmail and Outlook are still by far the best options in terms of ease of use, free storage, and the quality of their webmail clients. I would even go so far as to say that the Gmail web client was so good that it single-handedly killed the desktop mail client for casual users. I think that today, there are really only three legitimate players left if you’re a rational consumer who is self-interested in picking the best e-mail client for yourself: Proton Mail if you care a lot about privacy, and Gmail or Outlook if you don’t.
- Comment on I hate how anything without "world" in its name is just about the US 4 months ago:
The only thing I am claiming is that a majority or large plurality of English language Internet users are American, meaning if you are to assume a country of origin (note: if), assuming the user is an American is the one most likely to be accurate. I think I’ve said enough on the matter.
If you disagree, that’s fine but I’m tired of this conversation.
- Comment on I hate how anything without "world" in its name is just about the US 4 months ago:
Surely you have a bit more thinking power than that. If you gave each of your bullet points a mere five seconds each of critical thought, you wouldn’t have made this ridiculous comment.
Those countries you mentioned? Of course there are people living in them. But there aren’t as many English-speakers as in America. I didn’t say all, I say most (this will be a recurring theme).
With the exception of southern Africa (76%), the rest of Africa has Internet penetration rates below 50%. As low as 27% in east Africa. Remember, I didn’t say all, I said most.
China’s great firewall prevents most people from accessing the outside Internet, and many Chinese people don’t care to. I know this, because I’m fucking Chinese. Is it possible to circumvent? Sure, if you’re willing to play VPN whack-a-mole with the CCP. But again, I said most, I didn’t say all.
You also clearly have never been on any forums populated by Indian users if you think that I’m only saying Indians use unintelligible English on the Internet because I’m racist. They code-switch between English and Hindi. If you don’t know Hindi, you won’t understand it.
And also, I don’t use American English. I live in America but I am a Hongkonger and use British English.
- Comment on I hate how anything without "world" in its name is just about the US 4 months ago:
The average American uses only English language forums.
The average European who speaks English will probably spend some portion of their time using whatever their native language is.
The average English speaker in Africa is not as likely to have an Internet connection.
The average English speaker in China is likely to not be able to access English social media sites (great firewall).
Many English-speakers in India post online in a mix of English and Hindi that non-Indians find difficult to comprehend.
You’re correct that the claim that the US is ¾ the population of Europe is erroneous. But it is ¾ the population of the EU. I’ve corrected this.
- Comment on I hate how anything without "world" in its name is just about the US 4 months ago:
I did not claim the people who use English on the Internet are likely native English speakers.
I made the converse claim—that people whose native language is English are likely to use English on the Internet.
- Comment on I hate how anything without "world" in its name is just about the US 4 months ago:
This point was plainly addressed. Read carefully before going in guns-blazing.
Do you think Nigerians use the Internet as much as Americans?
- Comment on I hate how anything without "world" in its name is just about the US 4 months ago:
Not all Internet users generate the same amount of content. In addition to Americans being proud blabbermouths in general, people from wealthy countries generate more content than those from poorer countries. The US is among the wealthiest countries in the world.
Although it is not the most representative, nearly half of all Reddit users are American. American media outlets have immense global reach. You can probably name four or five American media outlets just off the top of your head, even if you’re not American. The USA’s geopolitical power means people are always talking about American politics or what America’s leaders are doing, which draws engagement from Americans like a lamp draws moths. 7 out of the top 10 English-language YouTube channels are American (fully or partially).
It’s pretty much impossible to prove, but I think the claim that Americans generate most of the content on the Internet is likely true or very close to true.
- Comment on I hate how anything without "world" in its name is just about the US 4 months ago:
I think you misunderstand.
What I am saying is that of all Internet users that use English, Americans are by far the largest group due to it being a very large country, (third most populous in the world) with a high Internet penetration (97%), and whose residents almost universally speak English as their main language (78.3%).
- Comment on I hate how anything without "world" in its name is just about the US 4 months ago:
To be fair, the US has the largest number of English-speakers of any country in the world. As a first language, it has five times as many native English speakers as second place (the UK). It also has one of the highest Internet penetration rates in the world, meaning most of those English-speakers are also Internet users.
The US is a single country that is three-quarters the population of the entire continent of Europe, and nearly all of its inhabitants speak English and use the Internet. So yes, if you pick a random user on an English social media page, odds are very good that person is an American. If you were to guess any random English-speaking Internet user’s nationality, “American” is the best possible guess. But go on a Spanish language forum or a French language forum and nobody will assume you’re American.
- Comment on YSK: You don't own your Kindle e-books. 4 months ago:
It didn’t say “e-book” when I originally wrote the reply
- Comment on YSK: You don't own your Kindle e-books. 4 months ago:
You can donate books to the library, you know. They’re always looking for more copies of popular books and what they don’t add to their collection, they’ll resell them and use the money for more books.
Paper books aren’t “waste” by any means as they are easily recycled.
Most authors I’ve heard from (through their Internet posts) don’t mind libraries, but they’d rather you enjoy their books legitimately than pirate.
- Comment on YSK: You don't own your Kindle e-books. 4 months ago:
It might not be legal, but in my book, it is perfectly ethical to pirate a copy without DRM if you already own a legitimate copy (paper or DRM-inclusive)
- Comment on YSK: You don't own your Kindle e-books. 4 months ago:
I would be astonished if publishers figured out a way to put DRM on a paper copy of a book.
- Comment on YSK: You don't own your Kindle e-books. 4 months ago:
- Comment on YSK: You don't own your Kindle e-books. 4 months ago:
Don’t do that. Authors make next to nothing from their books. You don’t have to support Amazon, but at least buy a paper copy or audiobook to support the author.
Unless it’s J. K. Rowling. Fuck Rowling.
- Comment on Arch Linux and Valve Collaboration 4 months ago:
Valve has enough lawyer money to keep Microsoft at bay.
- Comment on Arch Linux and Valve Collaboration 4 months ago:
This puts competitive pressure on Microsoft. Valve’s goal is to turn Steam OS into a legitimate competitor to Windows for gamers, and Microsoft should fear Valve’s success.
Right now, Microsoft has no legitimate competitors in the PC gaming space. They are free to do anything they want to their OS and consumers have no choice but to tolerate it. If Microsoft say “watch these adverts”, consumers open their eyes. If Microsoft says “pay up”, they reach for their wallets. If Microsoft says “suck”, they kneel.
If a competitor arises to Windows, then Microsoft will have to actually start worrying about losing customers to Steam OS. More importantly, every customer who switches to Steam OS is one who isn’t paying for Game Pass and one who isn’t buying games from the Microsoft Store and paying Microsoft their 30%.
- Comment on Arch Linux and Valve Collaboration 5 months ago:
Valve is not well meaning. No large for-profit company is ever well-meaning. It’s merely the case that Valve’s best interest happens to align with those of the consumer, and they have decided that their business model is going to be to win over consumers’ loyalty through goodwill rather than milking them for every penny they can get. And they are very successful at this, seeing that there has still not arisen any serious competitor to Steam. That’s entirely because consumers are loyal to the platform. Valve provides a good service, consumers reward them with loyalty. It’s not friendship, but it’s symbiotic, which is as close as you can get to friendship in the harsh world of business.
- Comment on CNN will start locking some articles behind a paywall 5 months ago:
I don’t mind paying for high-quality journalism but not CNN.
- Comment on Steam will let you sue Valve now 5 months ago:
Another common W for Steam, but in all seriousness, arbitration clauses in consumer contracts need to be banned.
- Comment on [deleted] 5 months ago:
.gov and .mil are controlled by the American government and they are reserved for use by American government websites and American military websites respectively.
