To be fair, they didn’t actually say that what the others called it was smart or correct, just that they did call it that. But given nuance can be deduced from people’s words, I think we can both assume that the person you’re engaging with isn’t playing with a full deck of cards…

Your first sentence is somewhat correct, I’d argue that dealing with any kind of absolute like you have done is incredibly dumb though. Of course being outspoken can get you bullied. It may be less likely in a university/college setting, but it’s definitely gonna happen. And your second second sentence is so wrong it’s almost comical. Bullying at a tertiary education level is so common that I guarantee there’s a bunch of studies done on it and probably a wiki page for it too.

Edit: lol, yep, shit loads of studies (and there’s plenty more to be found than just these few), and the wiki exists.

I’m already starting to have trouble with it. I’ve been perusing all on here cos the few communities I’ve found that fit my hobbies are pretty dead and I’m done with them for the day in less than 5mins. And being in all has exposed me to a shit load of ai porn. A lot is very obviously generated, but a lot of it also makes me double check what instance I’m on as it is super good at generating “real people” that look convincing. It’s not quite perfect, but it’s good enough to confuse me a little. Hell, there’s the odd one or two that I see where I legitimately can’t tell if it’s real or generated.

“I don’t get my info from Google”. Then use your search engine of choice, “google” is basically genericized by now. The info is all there for you to read and not rely on your memory which is clearly wrong. And that’s understandable. It’s been 10yrs.

And you’re not entirely right on the YouTube not stealing users from tiktok. YouTube shorts have more active users than tiktok does by a good margin. And tiktoks growth is slowing as a result. Again, these are all facts.

And finally, you’re a fucking idiot. Why the fuck did Instagrams user count explode when they implemented short form video if that wasn’t an attractive feature? Why is my Instagram feed 85%+ videos over pictures? I don’t even follow celebrities on there, a handful of bands (be less than 10), the rest is friends but mainly content creators creating comedy. Be it memes, original creations, stand up clips, etc. Your memory is shit and fallible, the pages I literally just read are not as they are saved for posterity. I suggest you take my original suggestion and do some research on the topic instead of relying on your feelings before you make yourself look like a bigger idiot. Cos yeah, Instagram didn’t take 100% of vines users, but it still took a fucking huge amount of them. The data is all out there, written way better than I can write it. Go read it and stop trying to act like you know all, cos after you read a bit, maybe you might change your tune…

Sure, you might not have, but the data suggests that Instagram allowing its users to post 15s videos and monetise them was what allowed them to poach a lot of vine users. This isn’t me just talking shit, google “why did vine shut down” and I guarantee 95%+ of the results will say the same thing. Twitter got scooped in a big way. I mean, vine had more users than Instagram before it’s downfall.

Data caps may have played a part, but it would’ve been insignificant. They were 6s videos after all, and the average American was already using over 1GB of data even back then. Instagram had about the same amount of users at the time. And their willingness to give their users more flexibility than vine was by giving users 15s videos and the ability to monetise was all it took. It wasn’t helped by twitter giving zero shits about vine. Which kinda makes sense, they had their own video thing going.

Vine didn’t fail cos it wasn’t popular, it failed cos Instagram saw what it was doing, copied it, and did it better.

cries in downloads such obscure stuff that I’m lucky if it has 2 or 3 seeds

Link worked fine for me just now, 13mins after your post.

Er, the lenses are still stupid cheap. I literally paid $50 all told for both frames and lenses. And I just searched for online budget retailers here in Australia, went with the first result, and their single vision lenses (even with my current prescription which is a bit fucked cos my eyes are vastly different and one of them is so bad the lens may as well be the bottom of a coke bottle) start at $AUD9.95. Bifocal is a bit more expensive, but still quite reasonable with prices starting at $AUD42. Sure, they have fancy Kodak lenses for $AUD280, and getting coatings and UV coating costs more (I still say that $AUD80 for the ultra premium ones with added blue light filtering and all those bells and whistles is “cheap” compared to what I used to pay), but there is no reason you can’t get a pair for under $AUD50 that’ll do you just fine.

Nah, glasses don’t have to be expensive. I notice literally no difference between pairs I’ve had that were over $400 and pairs that were $50. It’s just shaped glass… And whilst I mostly agree with you on headphones, there are a very small number of manufacturers out there who are doing some fantastic budget headphones. The earbuds I use now cost me $40 and shit all over any others I’ve had (and have lab verified frequency response curves to prove they are legit too). Should add, that even though they are budget, some of their products can easily cost over $1k, but then they are emulating headphones that cost over $5k…

I mean, there’s the potential for them to have made money (interest on preorders, investments from outside parties etc), but not like they would’ve if they took the money and ran.

Yeah, they’re also wrong about jellyfish being the only immortal animals. Gotta love being confidently incorrect…

Same end result, the money doesn’t come from the gross though. Well, it does indirectly cos the studio has to get the money from somewhere, but their contracts usually aren’t written in such a manner as they directly get the gross percentage straight to their bank account like a movie actor would (if movies ever actually made any money on the books). Which is all rather simplified, but I think it illustrates what I mean.

As for the contract length, yes the standard sign on time is 5yrs, but those contracts are renegotiated at the end of every season. There is a term for the conditions kicking in I referred to earlier but I’ve forgotten it and my google fu is failing me. Not every actors contract has them, but many do. To follow the friends example, kinda a moo point though, the point is that they get screwed if the studio can get away with it.

Advertising isn’t covered by the ADA. That’s the beginning and end of it. Yes, they should. No, they don’t have to. Just like liquor stores don’t have to hide their advertising. You’ve also assumed way too much about how broad the website accessibility statues are. They are very narrow, and the case you’ve presented is not covered by them. Websites aren’t required to censor their content for fear it may trigger a response in a disabled person. They are only required to ensure that the website is accessible to the disabled person. If what you proposed were the case, then no alcohol manufacturer or store would be able to have a website.

Your third point isn’t as sound as the other two. Paying out on gross instead of net is more commonly done with movies. In fact, many tv series die around the season 3 mark because that’s when conditions usually kick in on the regular casts contracts and they start making bank and the studios simply don’t want to pay that much.

You’re still wrong. The law mandates how websites should operate too so everyone can access them (which isn’t unique to the US either), and the article you linked even says that the case was covered by the ADA and no special interpretation was necessary (you may be confused by Domino’s horseshit response). The act does not mandate how advertising should and shouldn’t be conducted. The ADA covers quite a bit of ground. Might be worth looking it up before you spout off next time…

Kinda disagree with the Minecraft comparison, I got it in beta a millenia ago, and still play it. no idea about all this new shit they’ve released since (as an example, I’ve never touched redstone), I just like to start a world in survival and go explore (and die. Lots).

Works for those with ADHD too.

Yeah, that wasn’t my experience in Australia. Every Samsung I ever had had google apps and Samsung apps preinstalled. None of the rest. And all those baked in apps were easily disabled if they couldn’t be deleted (I couldn’t delete YouTube, but I could disable it so I could run Vanced and not have the normal YouTube app be the default). I suspect that even though you bought a unlocked phone, it came with a bunch of shit baked in cos you are in the US. There’s a lot of shit that is copacetic there (more generally speaking than just phone related) that doesn’t fly in the rest of the world.

As I said, there are other reasons not to use Samsung devices, but all these stories I’ve gotten in this thread have not matched up with the experience I had in over 7yrs.