snooggums

This is a difficult problem to solve.

Starving the entire population, half of which are children, is an inhumane solution. If it is too effective, it becomes the final solution.

Micropayments would scale at a ridiculous rate like microtransactions in games have, so your $20 example would be at least $200 in reality by now.

Ahhhh, I was.wondering why they would take the time to set up an API with that data and forgot that almost everything has a way to just dump things into it without needing to be set. I forget because where I work we actively avoid that approach because of risks like this.

This is the first time for me as well, and it sounds likely to be the last.

They aren’t going to make this easy cause it quite literally means giving the shareholders less profit, which is illegal in the US.

Making less profit than previous periods of time or even operating at a loss is not illegal in the US. Many companies have periods where they lose money or sacrifice short term profits for long term growth.

Investors with enough control might boot the leadership out, but they can also do that for whatever reason including unrealistic expectations.

That is what the help files say, but when I tried to register a work account yesterday it did the verify you are human, then said there was something suspicious and sent the email verification, then said there was something suspicious and is now requiring a phone verification even though I did not enter a phone number.

At no point was I ever signed in and able to even pick a channel. This all happened while trying to log in for the first time through the browser at work with my work email. I guess that someone else might not hit that phone requirement as I only tried to do the registration once, but it is in no way limited to joining a particular channel.

I don’t know if it is new, but it is in the help files when I tried to figure out why it required both confirming an email and the phone.

Do you think I’m talking about inherent value to dogs and cats?

I’m going to assume you are trolling and kick myself for falling for it.

I don’t think you understand what inherent means.

If something does not always have value in every circumstance, the value is not inherent.

The worst part is that they act like you can set up an account without a number, but then it acts like there is ‘suspicious activity’ and requires you to verify with the phone immediately.

Just rant into this yesterday trying to set up a work account as my work phone is not a mobile phone with sms.

Was registering really suspicious?

My only complaint about discord is that it requires a mobile phone number for an account, and you can’t use the same number for multiple accounts.

I want separate personal (with a silly account name) and professional (with my name) accounts, but only have one phone.

Pants have value in any climate.

Pants can have value, they do not have inherent value.

You’re looking for particular circumstances that mitigate or otherwise affect the inherent value of certain goods, though your scenarios depend on those goods having inherent value in the first place.

I am pointing out that there are exceptions to the assumption that there is inherent value to show that material goods do not have inherent value. That is the opposite of ‘depending on them having inherent value’.

Pants can be what keeps you from freezing to death and going to jail.

Can be, but pants do not have inherent value in the context of a tropical climate where freezing is not an issue and nudity is allowed. They have contextual value.

Food does not have inherent value, it scales with availability and demand. An excess of apples that will spoil before they can be processed into something that can be consumed do not have inherent value.

This is important because while money’s value is far more volatile, the argument that material goods have inherent value as a comparison is flawed.

Or if you pretended that material goods had an inherent value.

Fewer kids are going to church to learn about who to hate, so I think it balances out.

And not everyone should.

Somebody spent the money on a research team and five years is why it is very attainable now.

Someone trying to write the code from scratch would still take a research team and years to replicate it from scratch.

They could in theory, but that would drive down engagement and they would make less money.

It is pretty hard to identify negative posts separately from hyperbolic exaggeration though. How do you tell ridiculous rage bait from a good Onion article when the only real difference in context is who posted it?

They push the stuff that people spend more time interacting with. People tend to interact more with negative stuff.

When Netflix was under $10 I stopped pirating and just watched stuff on Netflix because it was worth it for the convenience at the price point.

That is how they solve piracy. Everything they have been doing over the last couple of years is the reason for the increase in piracy.