For a decade I hosted numerous large parties with food and alcohol. With a good core group and “selective pruning” (mostly of creeps) we never had any problems. My kids were always at my ex’s house though.
Where does the distinction lie between infinite parallel universes and infinite universes in a cycle? Does time pass through the cycle unbroken? Wouldn’t it also require a “superuniverse” with its own laws such that any universe it contains must be constructed so that a big crunch has to happen?
If you haven't read it, you might enjoy Adrian Tchaikovsky's Children of Time series. It's fiction which explores different intelligences, with the second novel[0] dealing specifically with octopuses.
Those questions can’t get to the root of how the GGP is using the word for two reasons: 1. Companies, not being alive, can’t possibly need in this sense without analogy. 2. The poster included electricity as something everybody needs but there are people surviving without it.
I shouldn’t pay because I’ve already paid. Price updates for the same major version in. Let new sales be your incentive to keep it up-to-date. Let a new version I actually want be my incentive to spend more money.
Subscriptions for software that don’t offer an external service put all the incentives backwards strictly to the benefit of the developer and expense of the user.
There’s no question why it’s a great deal for the developer. But nothing you’ve said explains why any user should buy into this at all.
“For the kids” arguments are distinct from arguments worrying about future generations in that they are almost entirely focused (ostensibly) on preventing harm to children while they are children rather than “all our descendants including the adults”.
Then let's ban child safety locks, child labor laws, and any law that distinguishes child abuse from other forms of abuse. Let's also allow minors to buy tobacco and alcohol while we're at it if we're claiming that any law that exists to protect children as children is inherently misguided.
I think if you spoke to the people actually making the claim they’d define it a little better to include only cases where adults are being asked to give up rights, freedoms, or privileges. But you can ask them.
I didn’t take a position on the argument. I pointed out a distinction.
We have only one side of the story and he didn’t give us any details of what the manager actually said. He also mentions the manager said something about “costs”. The author’s wants are reasonable but that doesn’t mean the manager’s wants aren’t also reasonable.
The services aren’t really that great IMO. They don’t always get you the quality you pay for. They hide their libraries either to keep you engaged with their app or to convince you it’s larger than it is. Most of them charge you even when you don’t use the service that month. But they’re doling out seasons an episode or three at a time to make sure you don’t unsubscribe during any given month. Some have renegged on their previous statements regarding password sharing. You pay for “screens” but those screens have to be for your household only. Their UIs and apps are often broken and are inconsistent between devices. Even when you pay for ad free sometimes there are ads “due to licensing issues” and almost all of them advertise their own shows or apps or podcasts before the content you want to watch.
reply