This is a really valid point, especially because it’s not only faster but dramatically cheaper.

The thing is, summaries which are pretty terrible might be costly. If decision makers are relying on these summaries and they’re inaccurate, then the consequences might be immeasurable.

Suppose you’re considering 2 cars, one is very cheap but on one random day per month it just won’t start, the other is 5x the price but will work every day. If you really need the car to get to work, then the one that randomly doesn’t start might be worse than no car at all.

Lots of people do lots of things.

I have a second sim card for my phone. I just turn off that sim when I’m not working, and set my status as away for group chat.

In this context, there isn’t any tangible benefit to having a second phone.

I wouldn’t be surprised if that’s how it plans out.

A regular group chat and another signal one for when you specifically need to talk to OP.

Having two phones absolutely sucks. Didn’t work for me at all.

It’s nice to be nice.

While higher prices cab make products more appealing, that is not the primary reason why vegan products are more expensive.

Correct. That’s precisely why producers of meat patties can still be profitable at a much lower price point.

It’s social media, who’s making scientific postulates?

It’s a lemmy comment.

It’s not rudimentary, it’s a complex system reduced to a few sentences.

1. Vegan patties have been around forever.

2. There aren’t significantly more barriers to entry for food products than other industries.

3. Yes vendors want high prices, but that applies to any product, not only vegan products.

The answer is, as everyone else has pointed out, economies of scale. There’s a larger market with more participants producing more beef burgers than there are vegan patties.

This is contrary to basic economic principles.

If a beef burger and vegan burger cost the same to make, but people will pay more for the vegan, that world attract more vegan producers to the market, and more competition would reduce the price.

The flag looks a bit like a disgruntled goose.

Obviously. Why is that threatened by this antitrust ruling ?

Nonsense. The users who have left are an infinitesimal portion of users.

This article doesn’t even bother to explain the connection. I don’t get it if I’m honest.

booking.com is the worst I’ve encountered. There’s a captcha type anti-bot thing that I can’t pass with firefox. I think it uses canvas.

edit: another I use all the time is called echo360. It’s the platform my university uses to host lecture videos. The player just plain doesn’t work in firefox - blank screen.

If one company is stifling competition, then competitors don’t have the resources required to innovate.

When you look at competitors offerings, you’re seeing the best they can do in a google-dominated market.

Real competition benefits users.

So that makes odysee’s behaviour OK?

Yeah it really does seem this way.

I’ve never been a “free speech absolutist”. I acknowledge that censorship is problematic, but it seems much less so than the alternative.