slams

Well great, this justifies jizzing in my garden.

Agreed on cabs but hotels haven’t changed anything significantly and they’re looking much better than AirBnB at this point.

Most laws passed in the south seem like cynical attempts to further persecute and abuse a specific group.

I wouldn’t expect somewhere in the south to do something well thought out, proven or logical on basically any issue.

Right, why can’t it be a wonderful place to live like Riverside or San Bernardino?

I don’t think the idea is to bring criminal proceedings against people. Not sure what they do in San Jose but in cities I’ve lived, homeless people are essentially immune to fines or criminal charges because police know they can’t/wont pay anything. So they go force them to move and throw away their belongings if they can’t or don’t take them in time, but do not arrest or ticket these people.

That surely won’t stop governments from throwing millions at it or private companies from taking the money.

Sure, it’s like how NYC spent $150 million to bust people evading $105,000 in subway fees. Absolutely anything to avoid legitimately helping people.

I’ve seen it used to describe when a post has more comments than it has likes.

deleted by creator

Their actions in the US market and tastes of US customers are not necessarily the same as elsewhere in the world. If Apple concentrated marketing in the US, for example, that would be sufficient.

deleted by creator

I didn’t say I was wondering now. I said I was wondering in the past. In any event, i expect to find out from the court case, not online comments from people who probably lack expertise in antitrust law and are not attorneys.

I think you could analyze it based on a company’s history. Some companies clearly didn’t earn a monopoly, for instance if they had a market handed to them by the government. Or, if they did the thing that’s actually illegal under antitrust law - used a monopoly in one market to expand to another.

Apple has been more successful in the US, so by definition one could conclude they’ve done something better than competitors, whether it’s the products, timing, or something else about their business activities. People aren’t forced to buy iPhones any more than they are forced to buy Android.

How is “cruelty the point” while you’re saying that expanding their market share is the point? That would make cruelty a means to an end, not an end itself.

I’ve wondered that in the past when people say Apple has a monopoly - there seems to be choice in the market. One can function fine with an Android phone. But people have said “they have a monopoly on iPhones” which doesn’t make much sense to me. Of course they do, but that’s not the same as a monopoly on mobile phones. Also having a monopoly isn’t illegal, only abusing it is. It’s not legal to have a successful proprietary product?

It didn’t used to seem that way but some of the discussions I’ve had here are actually worse than reddit recently. Take a discussion about Instagram drug sale spammers. I mean, people selling likely counterfeit “xanax” etc to anyone on social media by spamming. Who would stand up for these scumbags? People on Lemmy, apparently, who consider themselves leftists and communicate like sophomoric 19 year olds. “Drugs should be legalized anyway!” Well, that’s not going to make it legal or safe for addictive drugs to be sold on social media and uh, Xanax is legal. I found discussion of the same article on Hacker News and the difference in quality of comments was vast.

I find them useful for skimming articles, but when it’s “saved 90%” like this they tend to be somewhat disjointed.