I’m obviously not advocating or defending any particular behavior.

Legally speaking, why is what age they are today relevant rather than the age they are depicted as in the picture? Like, imagine we have a picture 20 years from now of someone at age 37. It’s legally fine until it’s revealed it was generated in 2023 when the person in question was 17? If the exact same picture was generated a year later it’s fine again?

If you make a picture today of someone based on how they looked 10 years ago, we say it’s depicting that person as the age they were 10 years ago. How is what age they are today relevant?

If you make a picture today of someone based on how they looked 10 years ago, we say it’s depicting that person as the age they were 10 years ago. How is what age they are today relevant?

Literally nothing I said justifies that assumption.

Nothing I said suggested beating or anything physical at all.

No one mentioned hitting or physical discipline of any kind.

They should make batteries that swap out completely so you can load a fully charged one in in a few seconds and let your old one charge while you’re off driving somewhere else. Or you just exchange the battery permanently like with some propane tanks.

I don’t believe that, but it’s certainly true that some people compare real world capitalism and hypothetical utopian communism, etc., which is obviously not a serious comparison.

I can probably come up with issues Democrats are further to the left than most other countries on. Abortion, for example.

It varies by region or state. Some places you can discipline pretty easily, others your ex will use your any discipline at all as a reason to take your kids away.

People just want fewer kids now, or they want them later. It’s not the money, it’s that kids are a drag.

Omg, the Evermore one was so bad because it was so good but actually 4 hours long. I lost one whole day of free time to that video. Lol

Please see my comment here.

Maybe I can illustrate better. Imagine your boss goes to pay you your paycheck and gives you and your coworkers 75% of what you’re supposed to be paid instead of 100%. You say, “Hey, where’s my other 25%” and they respond, “I don’t have any more, we ran out of money to pay you. We had to adjust to stay sustainable. You’ll only get 75% until our finances change.” Would you say, “well, since there’s still savings maybe, and there’s gonna be a bunch of new money the next time you go to pay out, just not enough, you technically didn’t run out. That’s technically something else?” I don’t know, maybe you would. I’d call that running out, though.

It’s a bigger problem that barely has to do with the specific shows or movies. Marvel Studios has mostly been coasting since Endgame. It also didn’t prioritize female led properties, so they’re all coming out in this coasting period. This means they might be on average not as good. It’s not directly because they’re female led, but it is sort of indirectly because of that.

For most of Lemmy, yes, that makes you a fascist.

Social Security is being slowly strangled.

The demographics are probably a bigger part of it. The ratio of people collecting to people paying in is much larger now and the length of time people collect on it is longer since people live longer now.

“I only robbed you of 25% of your income, what are you complaining about?”

What people mean when they say “run out” is that it won’t be able to keep up with its obligations. That is objectively bad. People will get reduced payments. There will be pain.

I just dont want a monopoly.

There is no monopoly in video streaming. Not even close.

wut. Not having meetings in private places literally is making sure the ‘place’ accepts everyone. Do you even read what you’re saying?

You’re misreading what I wrote. If government unfairly has vital meetings at Private Club which not everyone has access to, the solution is not to force Private Club to accept everyone, it’s to not have meetings at Private Club and have them at City Hall or something instead, somewhere that isn’t exclusive.

Thanks for your question.

I see food preparation and dining rooms as separate industries, even if they don’t appear that way at first. The most we can see this in practice is probably mall food courts. Web content like YouTube is the food and the web browser is the place or mechanism by which we consume “food”.

Is being allowed to take tacos into McDonald’s a hill I’m going to die on? No, of course not, it’s just the first illustration I thought of. Lol. I could probably come up with a better example, that one was just easier and more visual.

To be clear, I’m not saying there’s no anticompetitiveness happening, I’m saying that all vertical integration is basically this same amount of anticompetitiveness, and vertical integration is often very good, which is why we tolerate it all the time.

I agree the comparison to MS and Internet Explorer is somewhat similar. I also think that case was not decided particularly well, and it’s not as revealing as it could have been since it ended up settling out of court, and IE ended up getting crushed by Chrome just a few years later.

I wonder, if Google made a new app called YouTube that could only watch YouTube and made it the only app that could watch YouTube, sort of like Quibi, would that be more competitive or less competitive? No one is asserting that Quibi was anticompetitive at all, correct? That would be even worse for Firefox users, they’d completely lose access to YouTube unless they downloaded a 2nd app, this time YouTube instead of Chrome, but like Quibi it would seem to dodge all these competition concerns completely. I think that shows how these concerns can be selective and kind of nonsensical.