• 1 Post
  • 48 Comments
Joined 1 year ago
cake
Cake day: July 3rd, 2023

help-circle
  • Naive, perhaps, but if a company advertises a service, they better fucking deliver on that service. Sure, I wouldn’t store all of my important documents solely on a cloud service either, but let’s not victim blame the guy here who paid for a service and was not given that service. Google’s Enterprise plan promised unlimited data; whether that’s 10 GB or 200 TB, that’s not for us nor Google to judge. Unlimited means unlimited. And in an article linked in the OP, even customer service seemed to assure them that it was indeed unlimited, with no cap. And then pulled the rug.

    And on top of that, according to the article, Google emailed them saying their account would be in “read-only” mode, as in, they could download the files but not upload any. Which is fine enough-- until Google contacted them saying they were using too much space and their files would all be deleted. Space that, again, was originally unlimited.

    Judge the guy all you want, but don’t blame him. Fuck Google, full stop.







  • This is true, but the slight difference is that the WiiU extremely undersold. A significant number of people who own a Switch did not own a WiiU-- I myself did own a WiiU, and was bummed to not be able to play Mario Maker, Splatoon, Mario Kart 8, 3D World, and so on… but most of my complaints were met with re-releases and sequels. I can’t say I entirely disagree with the decision, again since the WiiU was a major flop, but it would have been nice to have my WiiU library brought over. But for most people, they didn’t care. I mean, MK8D sold more copies than the WiiU itself.

    But this is a different ball game. The Switch is a success. Many people own a Switch. The Legend of Zelda games on Switch are among the highest rated video games in history. If this catalog is lost when transferring to the next console, Nintendo would absolutely be shooting themselves in the foot. Historically, Nintendo is somewhat on board with backwards compatibility, but not always, so we’ll see.




  • funnystuff97@lemmy.worldtoMemes@lemmy.mlNo doubts
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    9 months ago

    Sure, but if you’re using the IVT as a proof that there was a point where there was indeed a “first chicken egg”, you still haven’t answered whether the first chicken egg came before the first chicken. Clearly there was a first egg and there was a first chicken, IVT proves this, but which came first? This depends on those definitions. We’d need to find exactly where it “passes over”, which could depend on who you ask.

    If you define a chicken as hatching from a chicken egg (“every chicken must have hatched from a chicken egg”), then the egg came first. If you define a chicken egg as an egg that was laid by a chicken (“all chicken eggs must have been laid by chickens”), then the chicken came first. And notice how these definitions are not necessarily mutually exclusive, leading to this whole philosophical issue in the first place.

    If, in a much more extremely broad sense, we’re asking which came first, chickens or eggs in general, then I think we could agree that eggs came first, as I believe creatures were laying eggs long before the first “chicken” emerged, for most definitions of “chicken”.


  • funnystuff97@lemmy.worldtoMemes@lemmy.mlNo doubts
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    9 months ago

    I don’t think you can use the Intermediate Value Theorem to answer this. If taxonomists can entirely agree on one single path at each and every stage of evolution, the singular point of where an egg is now defined as a chicken egg where the egg that the creature which laid it hatched from is not a chicken egg–or vice versa, where a creature which is now defined as a chicken where its parents are not chickens–cannot be objectively determined. They’re human-defined lines, which makes this entirely a human philosophy problem in the first place.

    (EDIT: messed up the formatting of this image) I like this analogy here:

    I like this analogy here.

    It’s not completely relevant to this discussion, but it has some good points here. We can all agree that, at some point, it stopped being one color and started being another, but any method we use to draw that line would be arbitrary anyway. Maybe you take the hex code and find the point where the blue value is greater than the red value, but where is the text purple? Does purple even exist under this definition? Or maybe the text is red when, say, the hex for red is 80+% the total color value, blue for the opposite case, and purple for the in-between cases? But then, why 80% and not 90%? This is starting to sound really pretentious, but my point here is that in agreement to your last point, there’s no correct scientific answer to this problem.

    If a tree falls in the forest and nobody is around to hear it, does it make a sound? Of course it does.








  • Tip value sure, but tip percentage? I mean think about it, the price of the food will go up, so the percent of that elevated food price will also go up. Like, if I bought a $20 meal and tipped 15%, that’s a $3. But if because of inflation or whatever, the $20 meal increases its price to $40, a 15% tip is now $6. The tip has gone up, but the percentage has remained the same.

    So why are tips now going up to 21, 23, 25, hell I’ve seen a tablet that suggested 30%? (We all know the answer why, I’m being rherorical.)


  • No they don’t, this is tax fraud and illegal. Companies are not allowed to claim donation round-ups as their own for tax purposes. They may match donations, which they can claim, but they cannot claim money they did not spend as their own donations. You, however, can, if you keep your receipts.

    “Just because it’s illegal doesn’t mean they don’t do it” – Fair point, but this is the IRS we’re talking about. I doubt big business are willing to fuck around that particular avenue. Other avenues, definitely.