I wouldn’t be surprised if that’s how it plans out.
A regular group chat and another signal one for when you specifically need to talk to OP.
I wouldn’t be surprised if that’s how it plans out.
A regular group chat and another signal one for when you specifically need to talk to OP.
Having two phones absolutely sucks. Didn’t work for me at all.
It’s nice to be nice.
While higher prices cab make products more appealing, that is not the primary reason why vegan products are more expensive.
Correct. That’s precisely why producers of meat patties can still be profitable at a much lower price point.
It’s social media, who’s making scientific postulates?
It’s a lemmy comment.
It’s not rudimentary, it’s a complex system reduced to a few sentences.
Vegan patties have been around forever.
There aren’t significantly more barriers to entry for food products than other industries.
Yes vendors want high prices, but that applies to any product, not only vegan products.
The answer is, as everyone else has pointed out, economies of scale. There’s a larger market with more participants producing more beef burgers than there are vegan patties.
This is contrary to basic economic principles.
If a beef burger and vegan burger cost the same to make, but people will pay more for the vegan, that world attract more vegan producers to the market, and more competition would reduce the price.
The flag looks a bit like a disgruntled goose.
Getting wasted in bars and clubs is not how one finds quality life partners.
Similarly, if no one is into you, that might be because the core of your identity is feeling desperately lonely while getting drunk in bars and clubs.
Obviously. Why is that threatened by this antitrust ruling ?
This article doesn’t even bother to explain the connection. I don’t get it if I’m honest.
booking.com is the worst I’ve encountered. There’s a captcha type anti-bot thing that I can’t pass with firefox. I think it uses canvas.
If one company is stifling competition, then competitors don’t have the resources required to innovate.
When you look at competitors offerings, you’re seeing the best they can do in a google-dominated market.
Real competition benefits users.
So that makes odysee’s behaviour OK?
Yeah it really does seem this way.
I’ve never been a “free speech absolutist”. I acknowledge that censorship is problematic, but it seems much less so than the alternative.
The problem is, if one company dominates search, you have no way to evaluate whether they are doing it well.
Mozilla could do search themselves.
This is a really valid point, especially because it’s not only faster but dramatically cheaper.
The thing is, summaries which are pretty terrible might be costly. If decision makers are relying on these summaries and they’re inaccurate, then the consequences might be immeasurable.
Suppose you’re considering 2 cars, one is very cheap but on one random day per month it just won’t start, the other is 5x the price but will work every day. If you really need the car to get to work, then the one that randomly doesn’t start might be worse than no car at all.