Either take some responsibility and properly evaluate what that convenience means for you long term or don't complain when they leverage that vendor lock in at your disadvantage.
I don't understand why someone would go through the effort to prompt that when the comments it suggested are total garbage, and it seems like would take similar effort to produce a low quality human written comment.
Autoplay keeps turning itself back on. I’ve probably turned it off a dozen times now.
The other autoplay, where it starts playing stuff while browsing. I’ve tuned this off many times too.
The massive thumbnails so I can only see 2 thumbnails on the screen, I’m not sure what the advantage is here other than better tracking what you linger on. They also get bigger on the active row, so if I see a video I might want on the 2nd cut off row, then make it my active row, the thumbnails get bigger and I can’t see it anymore. I lose context due to this all the time and it drives me nuts.
Shorts, yes, but not just Shorts in the Recommendations, but Shorts dominating search results, where it almost doesn’t show traditional videos anymore. In the browser you can filter search results for videos vs shorts, but not on the AppleTV.
It keeps showing big banners with a demo video next to it for features Premium users can get… it’s an ad for something I’ve already signed up for. I report these as spam.
The games. I’ve never once played one, yet they are prominently displayed in my recommendations.
I think as a Premium user I should be able to choose what screen the app opens into, or what is on my home page. I’d like my watch later list, for example. Instead, it just randomly mixes some of those into the recommendations and it may or may not make it clear which ones those are.
I know there is more, and some big ones I’m missing, but those are some of the things they come to mind.
You must not know what "rape culture" means. It doesn't mean just rape, but an environment in which misogyny and violence against women is normalized / celebrated / defended.
Doing it without their permission and posting it below their comments is definitely misogyny and sexual harassment. If you did that in the workplace you'd be fired for cause.
Fantasy is always consensual; the line is only crossed when people share these images. It's the difference between fantasizing about a co-worker and telling them about those fantasies.
The problem is, this service very publicly shares those images, and usually in a way that directly tags the actual person. So, very much across the line in to "harming actual people."
Since this regularly harms women, people round it off to "misogyny". Even if the motive is not "harm women", the end result is still "women were harmed".
(There also IS an exception if you know the person well enough to expect that they're cool with it - but the onus is still on you if you guess wrong and your actions end up causing harm.)
Misogyny doesn't just mean you hate women. It can also mean you believe them lesser, or you do not respect women, or you are actively trying to undermine them.
Sharing lewd pictures is using the tools of the patriarchy to shame and humiliate women. That's misogyny.
Think of it this way. I want to humiliate a black man online, so I generate a picture of him eating a huge watermelon slice and share it around for giggles. Is that racism? Of course it is.
I'm kind of confused how you got to your current statement so I would like to ask you: how would you define misogyny? what is the behavior of a misogynist?
additionally, how would you define the term "rape culture"? Are you aware of the term at all?
This feels like an incredibly disingenuous comparison and I suspect you know that. But just to play along, real artists had to design the character models, real filmmakers had to decide which shots to capture, real editors had to put that together to make a cohesive story. Also they almost certainly went through color grading after having completed the rendering, so the colors are certainly selected by humans to produce a nice looking composition.
> Law enforcement is an idea that originated when law originated. There is no law without enforcement.
To the extent this anything more than circular it's false. Although psychopaths exist, on the whole compliance to a lesser or greater degree is a normal human trait. So you can tell people what the rules are and they'll obey to some extent. How much varies from person to person.
So the creation of specialist law enforcement bodies is a distinct and relatively modern change to civilisations. Before this, there is either no actual enforcement or it depends on whether a powerful person knows you broke a rule and cares to enforce it.
Law enforcement organizations existed in ancient times, such as prefects in ancient China, paqūdus in Babylonia, curaca in the Inca Empire, vigiles in the Roman Empire, and Medjay in ancient Egypt. Who law enforcers were and reported to depended on the civilization and often changed over time, but they were typically slaves, soldiers, officers of a judge, or hired by settlements and households. Aside from their duties to enforce laws, many ancient law enforcers also served as slave catchers, firefighters, watchmen, city guards, and bodyguards.
By the post-classical period and the Middle Ages, forces such as the Santa Hermandades, the shurta, and the Maréchaussée provided services ranging from law enforcement and personal protection to customs enforcement and waste collection. In England, a complex law enforcement system emerged, where tithings, groups of ten families, were responsible for ensuring good behavior and apprehending criminals; groups of ten tithings ("hundreds") were overseen by a reeve; hundreds were governed by administrative divisions known as shires; and shires were overseen by shire-reeves. In feudal Japan, samurai were responsible for enforcing laws.
The concept of police as the primary law enforcement organization originated in Europe in the early modern period; the first statutory police force was the High Constables of Edinburgh in 1611, while the first organized police force was the Paris lieutenant général de police in 1667. Until the 18th century, law enforcement in England was mostly the responsibility of private citizens and thief-takers, albeit also including constables and watchmen. This system gradually shifted to government control following the 1749 establishment of the London Bow Street Runners, the first formal police force in Britain. In 1800, Napoleon reorganized French law enforcement to form the Paris Police Prefecture; the British government passed the Glasgow Police Act, establishing the City of Glasgow Police; and the Thames River Police was formed in England to combat theft on the River Thames. In September 1829, Robert Peel merged the Bow Street Runners and the Thames River Police to form the Metropolitan Police. The title of the "first modern police force" has still been claimed by the modern successors to these organizations
The Americans do have a history of using Police forces for Slave capture, but Police forces in the USA PRE DATED that
Following European colonization of the Americas, the first law enforcement agencies in the Thirteen Colonies were the New York Sheriff's Office and the edit County Sheriff's Department, both formed in the 1660s in the Province of New York. The Province of Carolina established slave-catcher patrols in the 1700s, and by 1785, the Charleston Guard and Watch was reported to have the duties and organization of a modern police force. The first municipal police department in the United States was the Philadelphia Police Department, while the first American state police, federal law enforcement agency was the United States Marshals Service, both formed in 1789. In the American frontier, law enforcement was the responsibility of county sheriffs, rangers, constables, and marshals. The first law enforcement agency in Canada was the Royal Newfoundland Constabulary, established in 1729, while the first Canadian national law enforcement agency was the Dominion Police, established in 1868.
How can you believe it's both "no better than placebo" but also that it's "going to have his brain chemistry altered and essentially be addicted to a drug". SSRIs are not considered addictive, though people can develop a dependence if it provides them significant improvement.
The whole point of the linked article is that the drug is no better at placebo at treating depression but also carries a host of known side effects, besides unknowns when it comes to long term use. They're not saying it's inert.
That's fair, though I never implied that there were no side effects. The part I was trying to point out in the quote was the mention of it being addictive which is not really supported, nor is that mentioned in the article.
Here’s a paper from last year: The nature and impact of antidepressant withdrawal symptoms and proposal of the Discriminatory Antidepressant Withdrawal Symptoms Scale (DAWSS) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jadr.2024.100765
‘Highlights
•
Antidepressant withdrawal can be severe and protracted.
•
It produces characteristic physical and emotional symptoms.
•
All symptoms were more severe after stopping than before starting antidepressants.
•
We identified the 15 most discriminatory withdrawal symptoms in our sample.
•
Withdrawal did not differ between people with physical or mental health diagnoses.’
This seems like a you problem. I have quite a few repos made before using "main" was the default in GitHub or Git. I have not changed them, and I have never spent more than 5 seconds thinking about it, let alone worrying about being considered "less of a person" because of it.
Interesting you mention jumping spiders, I just saw a rather interesting video talking about exactly this and includes some interviews with scientists involved in some of these experiments [1]. One interesting fact I learned is that they have a sense of numeracy, and can distinguish between one, two and three-or-more objects.
If you read fiction you might find The Children of Time to be interesting. It follows the hyper accelerated evolution of jumping spiders to a sentient species that eventually has to coexist with humans. It leans on a lot of fact about jumping spiders and uses it as a jumping point to what their societies might look like if given the chance to evolve as the top predators.
