I wonder if it’s a “reader” thing. I can see that the url more accurately aligns with your title. In reader view it’s a story about Pakistan, but in web view it’s a paywall.

What is up with the post title being unrelated to the linked article?

No clue

The streaming service pays them out of a pool proportionally. So he basically diluted the distribution from that pool, resulting in lower payments to everyone else.

That first Bo Burnham video in his room with a keyboard

The point is that they have no financial incentive to clean up or prevent bloat, so they don’t.

Linux doesn’t either, but the Linux community operates on principles and passion instead of financial incentives, and so thusly is not similarly bloated.

The goal of msft isn’t to be and efficient steward of your resources, or better enable the user, or to create a platform for game/app developers in hopes of creating a more attractive ecosystem for you.

It’s nothing like any of those things.

The goal of Microsoft is to maximize shareholder returns, and the best way to do that is to abuse their dominant market position while monetizing every aspect of their platform that most people will buy anyway.

Nas Ne Dogoniat

Snug fit, decent clutch, doesn’t require extra force.

Good call out, corrected.

Could just be a consequence of a less ideologically diverse user base to start with.

I’m so upset about (privacy, reddit, corporatism, etc, etc) that I’m prepared to leave my large online social networks for a smaller space on principal is probably a bit of an outlier position to take.

Not that it’s wrong, but it’s probably something we all agree on. Something out there is so fucked up we refuse to be a part of it on principal, even if we don’t fully agree on what that is.

Could just be a consequence of a less ideologically diverse user base to start with.

I’m so upset about (privacy, reddit, corporatism, etc, etc) that I’m prepared to leave my large online social networks for a smaller space on principal is probably a bit of an outlier position to take.

Not that it’s wrong, but it’s probably something we’ll all agree on. Something out there is so fucked up we refuse to be a part of it on principal, even if we don’t fully agree on what that is.

This doesn’t seem unreasonable, it’s like interlock devices for repeat drunk drivers.

Me too!

Some real handmaids tale evil right there

I know exactly what you’re talking about, I either dig it out with a finger or gargle it out.

Unfortunately…

They would be “derelict in their fiduciary responsibility to their shareholders” to charge less than we will pay, and what we will pay changed.