I think so, I don’t remember how long that was. But I do distinctly remember the era where it was shoved down everyone’s throat, which I have to say stuck with people far more. Telling people that they must use it, generated so much hatred for it it was insane.
I remember when they offered 1GB, was at a time when I think the standard hotmail was like either 10 MB or 100 MB, and they made the announcement on april 1st.
Then did it via an invite system.
You know now that I think of it, I wonder what would have happened if google plus had used a similar playbook to that. Seems like with gmail google knew the “exclusivity” was a selling point. Facebook grew big via similar strategies (only these special college students can get it, ok a few more colleges can), meanwhile google plus was "HEY, USE GOOGLE PLUS NOW, Oh you aren’t using it yet, we made your youtube account a google plus account now, so now you have an account please use it now!
While social media in general is toxic. I do feel design wise google plus was leaps and bounds ahead of facebook at the time. Circles is IMO the feature that would have made social media actually semi-useful. (IE post your video game content to gamer friends, fun activities to friends, and not putting any job risking content to bosses etc…).
I can give you they had different ways to get to that position. As much as I hate IE, I do have to admit it was ahead of netscape for quite a significant time. But yes google used less monopolistic practices to get in there, beyond like spamming you whenever you went to google. I will admit even now edge does worse in the monopolistic practices "I see you went all out of your way to download another browser, are you sure you really want to switch to it, have you at least given edge a fair shot? Please try it out for a bit longer. (and of cousre it’s worth noting now edge is basically a skin of chrome),
But how they got there wasn’t what I was talking about anyway, The point is web pages now cater to chrome, as that’s what makes up over 60% of the total usage, with about 20% being safari (of which you can pretty much assume almost all of that is mobile), and almost everything at the top is running chromes engine.
So in short, if you are designing a page.
Does it work on blink engine, that covers 76% of users, then does the mobile site work on safari, that covers another 20%,
Point is a monopoly is a monopoly, even IF the reason they are there is purely good. The point of the article is just noting that to not use chrome’s engine, browsers have to take the time to make things work, because the websites themselves have little incentive to do so. for such a small percent of their userbase.
So TL:DR, chrome is like internet explorer was before firefox. It does some things outside the standard, and because it’s the modern day “default”. sites sloppily code to work with it, and other browsers are left carrying the bag because if tiktok doesn’t work on firefox, people will view that as a firefox problem. Even if firefox is the one actually following the standards when tiktok and chrome aren’t.
I mean I’m sure there’s been some… but well how popular would they be. I mean the long and short of how it has to be done… no private messages, all public messages heavily monitored. Which unfortunately isn’t a recipe for making a site popular with kids.
I mean if you are talking pre-google youtube, I don’t believe it had a subscription model… or any real plan to profit or pay it’s creators. It was both hemorrhaging money itself, and giving it’s creators nothing.
Post google youtube, I guess yeah it is, but worth noting mostly it isn’t exactly a high production values system, with the exception of like mr beast etc… which make a boatload of money by still following the same traps as regular TV, catering to the lowest common denominators, microanalyzing maximum views on every aspect.
I think the biggest difficulty is the change in dynamics for kids being able to be somewhere by themselves. (IE generally speaking if there isn’t a parent near them, you have to worry about CPS taking action), and 2. Biggest thing of “rich parents” these days is, single income that can maintain a household, as just finding the time to go somewhere with the kids is a huge challenge.
People DON’T want to pay for loads of small channels, they want to pay someone once and get everything they want.
That varries a bit, yes they want to pay someone once for everything they want. But they really hate seeing their bill go up more and more each year, while getting less of what they want every year. When their bill goes up from 120 to 150, and all they see happen is adding a bunch of channels they don’t want, they start feeling like the bulk of their money is going into things they don’t want.
I agree, the 2 options are a fairly low price that includes EVERYTHING including what they want… or extremely low prices but at least some confirmation that what they are paying for is actually what they want.
Agreed netflix as it was when streaming picked up but before everyone and their grandmother started their own streaming channel was pretty ideal, low cost and had just about everything.
but yeah once everything was evenly distributed among Netflix, Hulu, Apple, paramount, amazon etc… those days are gone. But the concept still applies that the real pet peve for users that want to get their own, is they’d want to pay one low cost to get the shows that they want. But no matter what your tastes are… odds are what you want is perfectly evenly spaced among the competing channels, and would easily cost well over 100 a month to actually get it.
IMO the biggest thing is in the fracturing they had the ability to do what everyone thought cable should do.
IE cable packages could have been made to work, if say they were actually split by genre or similar. But instead if you want a package for X, you pay for 500 channels you don’t want.
IE if the streaming services split up by genre. Like off the top of my head discovery + was the only one that IMO did a cool thing, IE focused on purely giving a solid theme where if you like educational type programs, that’s the one to get.
If there were like a sci fi focused streaming, or comedy etc… but rather than going focused, we’ve got 20 generalists. As a result if say you only like one type of show, you need to buy 6 streaming services, for the 6 good shows in that genre.
Well they better, in california everything gives them cancer.
I would be mad, but, I’d also say go. Honestly when I was about 19, my mom more or less did this, in short she spent weeks talking up a hair dresser friend at church, commented that she played D&D, Eventually arranged for me to join her, and get a hair cut.
I talked with her, didn’t really go anywhere, From my understanding the girl afterwards kind of responded to my mom something along the lines of “I know you are hoping I’d be your son’s future wife but that’s not where I am in life right now”, and all the embarassment went on my mom for that.
So yeah, if you ask me, give it a shot, if it sucks, you’ve got solid standing to tell your dad not to do that shit again, if it’s good, maybe something good can come from it.
r conservative the trolling is very short lived… you’ll get one post to survive 15 minutes before getting banned.
Though to my understanding, it is from them… to my knowledge if a shop gets broken into, in their territory you don’t call them, they already are aware and hunting down the perpetrators. Kind of what gang wars are… one gang basically declares an area their territory, if another gang takes action in that area they are basically declaring a gang war.
Obviously gangs know it’s bad for business if they want to collect protection money, and they aren’t overwhelmingly the biggest thing to be afraid of.
Yeah on the whole my thoughts are… it’s probably not the utopia people want it to be… but I think it’s clear… what we have right now is pretty undeniably horrific. The whole concept of a single individual literally having more than millions of people put together, while billions are sweating whether they will keep basic necesities is so insane to me.
This is basically saying too much suffering is bad (succumbing to hunger). But a little (harsh breakup) can be good.
Not quite, first off scale isn’t quite as relevant there, beyond a certain point can leave no room for revocation.
Hypothetically a brain tumor can cause suffering, but the removal might rewire your brain so you feel better.
Stepping on a lego may hurt… and most likely nothing of worth is gained from it.
Suffering is always bad… the events afterwards can go either way. Even say the harsh breakup, might lead to personal growth, might lead to a long depression spiral that ends in murder or suicide.
Also more important to point out, suffering isn’t required for personal growth. Maybe someone becomes a better person by going to therapy, or just watching someone be kind to someone else and being inspired, or falling in love with someone that loves them back.
Suffering is one of many potential change agents per say. That change can be positive or negative, and again there are millions of change agents in the world. Suffering by definition is an unpleasant agent of change.
Suffering isn’t good, but good can come from suffering, but certainly doesn’t always.
A harsh breakup can lead to personal growth.
A loss of a job could lead to a better job and possibly better money management strategies.
But a kid born into abject poverty in an undeveloped villiage, spends his whole life scraping by in suffering always hungry until succumbing to a slow painful death – no good, no meaning.
Mostly the idea that suffering is good is more common in religious ideologies that need an excuse to explain why their powerful god doesn’t step in and fix things.
Much like the wilheim scream, it’s a popular stock sound effect. It’s in the intro of diddy kong racing, but it’s in all kinds of movies like Mulan, Monsters inc 2, Taken, the simpsons movie, Xmen 2, Gladiator. hot fuzz, the bourne identity, five nights at freddys, wrath of the titan, resident evil the final chapter just to name a few.
actual stock sounds library it’s just called giggling 2 children https://soundideas.sourceaudio.com/track/11473800
Diddy kong racing isn’t it’s origin, (it was used in Pocahontas 2 years prior to Diddy Kong racings release at a minimum), I think that’s where it became the most obvious though, because if you played Diddy Kong Racing, you heard that sound effect every time you started up the game, which makes recognizing it everywhere else really common.
Also the diddy laugh will haunt you endlessly once you recognize it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e8CArkcAuLE
(nickname comes from it’s presence in the diddy kong racing start… but it’s in so many movies and shows once you are keyed in to listen for it).
Colbert’s current late show is clearly critical of trump.
The Colbert Report was satirically mocking the right wing by pretending to agree with them. Some of the less smart republicans didn’t get the jokes and thought he was on their side. I’d honestly be very unsuprised if trump fell into the camp of conservatives that thought colbert used to be a hard core republican.
I don’t think marketing was wave’s problem… nobody understood what the hell wave was. I used it for a few months… and I can’t tell you what the hell it was.