MimicJar

Yes? I'm forming my opinions based on reporting. You're basing your opinions based on opinions.

Again I'm not saying you're wrong. Look at the information Snowden revealed. Before the reveal it was conspiracy theory. Now it's fact.

This reporting isn't fact, it's reporting in progress. At the moment it doesn't find the always listening allegation to be true, but not impossible either.

It's not trusting Big Tech, it's understanding that Little Tech can also lie.

Cox Media Group wants to hype up their product and use AI buzzwords. To be seen as reliable they say that they work with Google, Amazon, Facebook, etc.

The report is basically CMG saying they can do X, and everyone else calling bullshit. (And in response CMG clarifying "No, we don't actually do that" and then also removing the companies they don't actually work with.)

It isn't definitively saying they don't, but also isn't saying that they do. You can assume the worst if you like, but that doesn't mean the worst is actually true.

Is it possible this type of spying exists? Yes. Is it possible this is a cover up? Yes. Do we have actual data to support that? No.

Tomorrow an investigation may reveal otherwise, but for now it doesn't seem to be the case.

#2 because it allows you to later give them a mustache (#1), which is funny but the toaster isn't amused.

That's because he really does believe it. If you listen to him say he heard it on TV it is the most genuine statement he has ever made. It's like a child telling you exactly what they saw on TV.

If you're looking for someone to sue it would have to be the "sources" Trump heard the information from. Unfortunately I'm confident those people understand the ruse. They know to say allegedly. They know how to utilize weasel words.

Oh I agree, you just want to believe that even the world's stupidest person could eventually learn something. It's not like this is a case of him being deliberately obtuse, which we often see, he truly believes his own nonsense.

It's honestly madness.

The former President, running a multi-million dollar campaign, with access to the best information in the world, has nothing to say but rambling "but the TV said, but the TV said!"

Just an absolute fool.

It's been a while since I watched Smith/Capaldi era. I do remember getting bored by the later Pond storyline, but I remember liking Clara, although I don't remember if that took until Capaldi.

I definitely remember liking Capaldi in general while watching, but I recall fewer episodes. So they probably didn't stick and were weaker stories.

I did skip most of Whitaker for similar story related reasons.

Ncuti is fresh in my mind however. And the "Wild Blue Yonder" special, which is fantastic Tennant Doctor, puts me right in the mind set you're looking for.

Ultimately I think we're heading towards that level of quality. I think the debut episode (The Church on Ruby Road) is a solid start. I think the first regular episode (Space Babies) is an odd one. But the one after that (The Devil's Chord) is great.

I think it's worth it, but if you're not sure then give it 3 episodes (or skip Space Babies and watch it later if you enjoy the others).

The newest season of Who with Ncuti Gatwa as the Doctor. As with any new Doctor it takes a bit before they get it right and as with any season it has ups and downs. But overall? I really enjoyed it and look forward to his return.

Anything I'm missing?

Jumanji: Welcome to the Jungle & Jumanji: Next Level could be described the same way, they made ~$900 million & ~$800 million respectively.

I use them as a reference because this looks like Jumanji: A Minecraft Movie.

Sure, Minecraft will have a higher CG budget, but Minecraft also has a HUGE built-in audience. So they'll be making plenty of money.

But also, those Jumanji movies were fine. You know the Sonic movies? They are silly, but ultimately fine.

Yes but PROVE IT. Define what wrong they did. That's my point.

Take a look at the recent monopoly trial, https://www.nytimes.com/2024/08/05/technology/google-antitrust-ruling.html

They claim that spending $18 billion per year to be the default search engine makes them monopolistic. That's it? That's all they got?

So the result will be Google stops paying $18 billion and device/browser manufacturers have to put up a Browser Choice dot EU type option.

Go back 10 years and put that law in place. AFAIK Apple has always defaulted to Google. Samsung probably would have sold out to Bing to be the default (although in this case Bing wouldn't reach a monopoly, so I guess that's ok for some reason).

I'm not saying paying to be the default didn't help, but is that the reason they have 90% of the searches? No.

Did they do some else? Maybe. Someone should prove it and we can have an actual change.

Emergency is they key word here that will be abused by those that have an issue with this rule.

If I'm at work and receive a call that my partner/child/family member was in a car accident, that's an emergency. It is a rational and reasonable expectation that work understands I need a day or two (or more) to address this emergency.

Similarly if I'm at home and something with our widget affects a human life, that's an emergency. But it's also a one time emergency. If we produce widgets that result in emergencies then the next step is to hire/pay employees to cover widget emergencies.

As an invested employee I want the company to succeed. However if all I see is emergency after emergency. Failure to address emergencies. Or even false emergencies. Well then fuck off.

Employees have traditionally given a lot of slack in this area. Abuse by employers are what have caused these more official rulings.

Being a monopoly and engaging in negative monopolistic behaviors are also different things.

For example if the only two burger joints in the world were McDonalds and Burger King, and Burger King decided to replace their burgers with literal shit, actual human and animal feces, would McDonalds be a (I hope and assume) monopoly? Probably. Are they engaging in negative monopolistic behavior? Not necessarily.

Obviously, as a quick aside, fuck Google for their shitty software decisions, their cancelling of great products and their enshittification of a majority of their applications.

However simply having 90% of the market does not technically mean they have done anything wrong. You can't say they have 90% of the market therefore they have done something illegal or have abused being a monopoly.

You have to be specific. You have to call out payment to companies to be the default. But even that isn't quite enough because companies sold access. Can a company be at fault for buying access as the default? It was for sale. It's a weak argument, or at least an incomplete one. You need to prove they abused their position. Or you need to make a case that the industry they are in requires additional regulation as a whole.

I say this because although it sounds like I'm defending Google I'm not. There is a difference between something feeling illegal and something being illegal. Technically, although a recent judgement would disagree with me, they haven't done anything wrong. It feels like they have. I agree it feels like they have. But they haven't (or there are further pending results which will prove otherwise).