KombatWombat

• You see, the Grinch is a Who who always... Actually, not a Who, he's more of a...
• A what?
• Exactly, honey. And he's a What who doesn't like Christmas.

I had similar feelings. I knew I would miss my better, ad-free apps, but I could recognize it would be unreasonable to expect Reddit to pay for competitor access when it uses ads to support itself. I wouldn't even hold it against them if they removed third party access entirely. But the way they did it was just so slimy.

Lying to developers, then lying to users about their discussions. Then insisting their unviable price was reasonable just so they could claim to not actually be killing them. And during the protests, threatening and replacing mods of subs for literally implementing the rules their communities voted for simply because it hurt their bottom line. They were volunteer workers maintaining the platform for years because they love their communities; until they do something the company doesn't like, then suddenly they were employees to be fired and replaced. It really was the principle of the thing that disgusted me.

The original tweet's claim is false.

TLDR: It referenced an oral interview from a French think tank called The Shift Project. They have since acknowledged it as an error after a fact check from the International Energy Agency. BigThink originally tweeted this in 2019 along with a corresponding article. They have since issued a correction on the article and deleted the tweet. The IEA estimated that it would take around 45 hours of Netflix streaming to generate the carbon emissions of driving 4 miles.

Pierre is worth the upcharge simply because you don't have to walk all the way across town and back. In real life, grocery stores are unfortunately more convenient than farmer's markets.

What's wrong with it? It's somewhat aggressively worded, but it seems like a reasonable thing to be annoyed about.

It's been thoroughly trained to interact with people like a person would. I don't think it's unusual at all to forget it's pretend during the conversation. Honestly we probably wouldn't even be able to tell if it ever goes from acting like it has consciousness to actually having consciousness.

General blood donations do use that delay, but just plasma replenishes much faster. I don't think either is good at making you lose weight. It's basically dehydrating yourself.

That situation sucks but something that could get you a bit more money is donating plasma. It's a couple hundred bucks a month if you do it twice a week. It can be done in less than an hour if they aren't busy and you can be on your phone while it's happening.

They are liberating creative outlets in the sense that they offer a platform and tools for creative expression (barring some ToS rules) for free. You can post a creative video that may be seen by thousands without needing to sell ownership to some company. They play ads to pay for its associated costs and yes, to turn a profit, while giving a small portion to the creators as an additional incentive. But they are not intended to replace regular income in a meaningful way. I have never heard of anyone suggesting that trying to do so is a good idea, including the big name content creators that by exception do manage to earn a living from it.

If you think it should be a reliable way to make money, I would say you have the unfair expectation for it. I would compare it to complaining that a service that teaches you how to knit is only sufficient for hobbyists and rarely allows one to build a successful company selling clothes. That's just beyond the scope of what it's there for.

Ligma balls

It doesn't fit the community well. It uses the phrase but sarcastically instead of sincerely. It's also somewhat political. And without trying to be insulting to OP it's pretty low effort and not particularly funny or insightful. Some people are going to downvote for those reasons even if they agree with the implied sentiment.

It's why I personally dislike memes that are essentially just a picture of someone's opinion. People will also upvote them just to agree, so it encourages echo chambers instead of good discussion or learning.

The poverty line is for the nation overall. Using some of the highest cost of living areas to set it doesn't make sense. Why would you say a family making considerably more than most of their peers is poor because they would struggle to afford living somewhere else entirely?