KombatWombat

The entitlement comes from the idea that these are basic features that should be available to them for free, in addition to everything else included in the free service. They are the sort of things casual users may not even be aware of. If they don't think the extra stuff is worth the price, they can just not buy them. But thinking they are overvalued is not the same thing as thinking they should be free.

If you think the standard experience is adequate then why resort to piracy?

Because I use these a lot and want something better than the standard service when it's an option. If you wanted to sell a car for $5000 and someone offered you $10,000, would you say no because $5000 was adequate?

Because you don't think they are important, as if the important features to you are universal?

I guess "importance" is relative, so I'll clarify; they do little to contribute to the main function of the apps. Youtube is a video platform, so it should allow you to watch hosted videos. Discord is a voice and text messaging app, so you should be able to send messages and join calls. They are robust enough that you can do many other things with them too, but these secondary offerings are sometimes more limited if you don't pay. The people that do choose to pay supplement the cost of offering the basic services to those that don't.

First time I've seen someone else mention it. Definitely an underrated show with a lot of wild ideas.

I'm not saying it can't be done, but getting a compromise from a debate is not a primary goal. For competitions, the goal is usually to demonstrate and practice debate skills and the topic and positions matter less. For more serious debates, it is meant to be a way to expose people to the strengths of your position's arguments and expose the weaknesses of your opponent's. It's valuable as an opportunity to persuade an audience of people who haven't been firmly entrenched in either position, or who may have only been exposed to one side's arguments in earnest.

The framework does presume both viewpoints are valid, since both sides are expected to believe in their position, be rational, and be reasonably well-informed. An invalid perspective would not be argued by someone meeting these criteria. It does not presume equality as that would be preemptively judging the quality of the argument. Either the debate platform or the other debater would presumably not agree to a debate with someone who cannot be expected to meet these criteria.

Yeah Marvel characters' identities don't usually feel important. Nick Fury was race swapped for the movies and it was well-received.

Wikipedia describes the first two songs as

A 1980s-inspired downtempo electropop and synth-pop ballad

and

A synth-pop song

Both those are still pop. I listened to the first few songs in the album. They're not bad, and imo they're more interesting than her earlier hits. You're right that she has matured as an artist. But I imagine someone that disliked her earlier stuff would also dislike these. Music taste is something you can't really be right or wrong about. You shouldn't accuse someone of lying about listening to something just because they didn't like it.

In the US, brokerage companies legally have to send you a Form 1099 which covers all investment income over the year. You then include this when submitting your taxes. They probably send a similar report to your government instead.

This wouldn't be 25% of your profit, it's just increasing one of your expenses by 25%. ~~It looks like it's going up to $3000.~~

Edit: Enterprise price is negotiated with each company, so there's not a set subscription price. But it's still just the price of one expense, not a portion of total profits.

But it came back to bite them in the debate. Trump sounded particularly unhinged when he brought it up and wanted to change topics quickly when he realized how it sounded. Even his supporters must have been confused about what he was talking about.

People already can block individuals easily though. But I agree on the problem with centralized control. Preemptively removing posts/comments should only be done for things that clearly violate rules or are such low quality that it is very likely seeing the content would be to the detriment of most viewers, such as spam or advertisements.

It would be interesting to be able to vote on tags that apply to content so you could ignore stuff that was political for example, but that would just be abused more than current systems.

Thank you for sharing this. Mod abuse is both important to call out and entertaining to see when drama unfolds.

It also helps that there isn't a competitive mode yet. Until recently it didn't even track your stats in a visible way. Also, people can only get in by being invited, so you have to have had at least one person who has vouched for you in some way, which probably selects against the most toxic personalities.