I mean, yes, but they're minimal. They don't charge enough for a subscription to fully cover their revenues. Plus serving ads has always been something news outlets have done for revenue.
But hey, if they can just fuck off, I guess we can maintain either ads all over the page or let Sinclair/Newscorp run everything.
The issue isn't data transmission and hosting, it's paying someone a living wage to do this work professionally, along with their editors, graphic artists, analysts, and everyone else along the way that writes the news. It's a bit absurd that people complain about ads and low quality reporting/analysis while simultaneously demanding all journalists work for free. Hell, if you get a library card you'll probably be able to legitimately access the article right now for free in a way that still pays the journalist.
Probably a rosé then.
What the actual fuck are you talking about. The Japanese literally used suicide attacks and were so brainwashed they believed suicide was preferable to enemy capture. The Germans literally committed the multiple genocides. They were rehabilitated over time but it took time and effort. Both committed horrific atrocities, yet through international effort, are largely reformed.
Not really, that's a minor part of the opinion. The more important part is they tell you how much food you're going to get of what kind and then they give you that food. I don't think anyone would be able to win a case on "my burger didn't look like the burger in the ad" because every burger looks a little different. Lots of things that are the same don't look the same and let's not suddenly pretend we get McDonalds for the appearance. They'd win false advertising if, say, a quarter pounder was only 2 oz.
I dunno, seems like the judge is explicitly acknowledging it.
If you're a power user there's a minor learning curve to prevent shit from breaking and some mild inconveniences like being unable to use NFC. Location can also just not work at times. Overall, I'm glad I made the switch.
Building up a new economy is not a crash. A crash is when the current system gets wrecked and it's possible something better emerges from the ashes. The problem is that an economic crash primarily hurts the poor, even if they don't own the stocks/property/means of production. They're the ones whose jobs and homes are lost.
Consider, for example, the Bengal famine. Entirely economic, there was literally enough food but it became prohibitively expensive due to market forces driven by the British. The rich British aristocrats didn't suffer, Indians did. In Venezuela when the market crashed, rich people got out or are able to weather it. Poor people are either stuck having to attempt to make the best of a terrible situation, or flee and seek aid as migrants.
People thought that was the case with finance until 2008, instead we had people left homeless and jobless for years. Wealthy people have a safety net when the system fails. Poor people do not. If the U.S. crashed, people would die from the fallout. People died in the last recessions and they weren't mostly the rich.
Your response to someone noting that working for this office has inherent risks due to gun nuts existing and someone responding with "it's just a job" is to compare gun regulations to the Holocaust. You just followed up a sentence where you said this isn't about guns with two questions about guns. I think you either don't understand what the Nazis did or you're arguing in bad faith. My guess is both.
Also, I don't have to have a solution to gun violence to point out you're making a stupid and dangerous argument. Calling people who work on gun safety Nazis in response to someone noting that gun nuts make their job dangerous proves the point.
But that's not really a good reason to not have regulations. "People are going to steal your shit if they want to badly enough" does not mean theft shouldn't be a crime.
Agreed. I'm friends with a few journalists and even the ones who had a steady job at major outlets were working it like a hustle. There really isn't a good way to do it that doesn't involve some level of either corporate or wide-public investment and both of those have an easy chance to get corrupted.