thebestaquaman

joined 2 years ago
[–] thebestaquaman@lemmy.world 2 points 3 hours ago

The fundamental difference to me, which makes me not see "a website with extensive docs and a download button" as marketing, is whether you need to seek it out or not.

If I need to seek it out myself, it's not marketing, it's simply "providing solid information" and "making your product accessible", which is a whole different ballgame from "shoving your shit into peoples face in the hope that they'll give you money".

[–] thebestaquaman@lemmy.world 2 points 3 hours ago

I think there's a substantial difference between "supplying information about a product without shoving it in people's face", and what most people associate with "marketing".

If a company putting up neutral, verifiable information about their product on their own webpage where I can find it by searching for something I'm looking for after reflexively scrolling past the ads counts as marketing, then yes, I "fall for marketing" all the time. However, what I typically associate with "marketing" involves me somehow being fed information about a product without seeking it out. Usually when that happens, I'll actively look somewhere else.

[–] thebestaquaman@lemmy.world 3 points 2 weeks ago

Ref. the famous Ken Thompson hack. At some point you're forced to trust someone.

[–] thebestaquaman@lemmy.world 7 points 2 weeks ago

"Not a marketing company" as in their business model is not centred around shoving ads in your face for money is how I read it.

[–] thebestaquaman@lemmy.world 5 points 2 weeks ago

Oh absolutely. As with all other infrastructure, there is a cost to be paid. However, when you look at an average to small river, even routing 10 % of the water via an osmosis plant before passing it to the sea is an absolutely massive volume. There's also the point that you don't want to build these things in large, meandering, flat river deltas. You want a large salinity gradient, which means relatively small, fast-running fresh water meeting the ocean more "suddenly" than what you get in a classical river delta is the optimal source here.

[–] thebestaquaman@lemmy.world 44 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (3 children)

Because osmotic power has enormous potential in the sense that millions of cubic meters of fresh water is running into oceans all over the world every minute. If we're able to get even a low-efficiency method of using the salinity gradient to generate power working then every place a river meets the sea is essentially an unlimited (albeit low-yield) power source.

This is tech that doesn't rely on elevation (like hydropower) or weather conditions (like wind/solar) it's stable and in principle possible to set up at pretty much any river outlet, which is great!

[–] thebestaquaman@lemmy.world 7 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

Exactly this. The whole premise of the tax system is based around the historically correct idea that you need to physically move goods in order to sell them, or physically be somewhere to sell services.

Companies like google are making buckets of money all over the world, and don't need to tax a dime most places, because they have no physical presence there. This makes it pretty much impossible to compete with the international behemoths, because they have access to a munch of tax-free revenue, while a startup will typically be centred around wherever they're based, where they also need to pay taxes.

[–] thebestaquaman@lemmy.world 2 points 1 month ago

Exactly: I can understand that an open layout makes life harder for people in an already oppressive environment. This applies regardless of why the environment is oppressive any individual.

Claiming that "open environments are sexist" implies that they're somehow inherently oppressive towards one gender. That's absolute bullshit in my opinion: Open environments are just generally crap for productivity.

[–] thebestaquaman@lemmy.world 5 points 1 month ago (2 children)

Sorry, but what?

I hate open-plan layouts as much as the next guy, but how on earth are they sexist?

[–] thebestaquaman@lemmy.world 22 points 1 month ago

I had fantasies about women initiating affection, taking active roles during intimacy, and expressing a primal hunger to take the reins

In my personal experience, this is pretty much the norm. Women can have just as much sex drive as men, and can express it just as "aggressively". In every relationship I've had, there are times where I'll initiate, times where she'll initiate, and times where we'll both look at each other with a "Yes. Right now." look. Note that I've never been into any BDSM or other "exciting" kink stuff, I'm just talking about initiative and passionately expressing that "I want you" feeling.

Of course, this is a side of women you won't see until you get with someone that both wants you and feels comfortable enough you to express it.

So long story short: What you're looking for is pretty much the norm as far as I can tell.

[–] thebestaquaman@lemmy.world 8 points 1 month ago (3 children)

I'm not at all sure about this, but isn't there decent reason to believe that the gas giants have solid cores? I mean, earth generates plenty of heat in its core (largely from nuclear decay I believe), I don't see why the same thing couldn't be going on in Uranus?

[–] thebestaquaman@lemmy.world 2 points 2 months ago (2 children)

If that's the side you're coming from then I guess I can understand your argument. I was thinking from an animal welfare perspective, and the argument (which I've seen made before) that hunting is inhumane and that people should get their meat at the store instead.

As a side-note, I would really like a link to something backing up that people who hunt for food are more likely to be psychopaths.

 

Normally, I use YouTube very little (watch a couple videos a month). However, I've been in bed with an injury for some time now, which has led me to watch quite a bit of YouTube. The thing is, I subscribe to a small handfull of channels that I enjoy content from, but after a relatively short time I had watched pretty much all the new content from those channels.

Now, I would expect that the YouTube algorithm, which is supposedly designed by competent people to get me to stick around, would be able to suggest some decent content to me based on my subscriptions. However, the past week, I've opened YouTube only to find the same old videos being suggested over and over. Even worse: Whenever there's something interesting-looking from a channel I don't recognise, it always turns out to be some shitty AI voice over some generic animations or footage.

I know for a fact that thousands of hours of content are created on YouTube daily, but it genuinely feels like there are maybe five creators out there that are making anything worth watching. It's either that, or the YouTube algorithm is just complete crap at suggesting creators that are in any way similar to what I'm already subscribing to.

What's going on here? Why does it seem like there's no real content out there?

As a "funny" side note: What's with the "aggressively American" AI narrator-voice? I've heard it before, but thought it was some dude until I realised it's the same voice in a bunch of unrelated videos. It reminds me of the Discovery-channel "action-narrator"-voice from back in the day, but now it's showing up in all kinds of crap videos.

 

Inspired by the linked XKCD. Using 60% instead of 50% because that's an easy filter to apply on rottentomatoes.

I'll go first: I think "Sherlock Holmes: A game of Shadows" was awesome, from the plot to the characters ,and especially how they used screen-play to highlight how Sherlocks head works in these absurd ways.

view more: next ›