I think this is true, but I also grew up without Internet or social media so maybe things were more regional as opposed to this larger shared culture those things have enabled. So that may be part of it?
I think this is true, but I also grew up without Internet or social media so maybe things were more regional as opposed to this larger shared culture those things have enabled. So that may be part of it?
Again, you’re still arguing from the standpoint that I’m making fun of her natural eyebrows.
Which I’m not.
You’re attacking appearances. How one dresses or applies makeup doesn’t matter in the context of the conversation. These are are matters of personal taste. Why do we need to know your thoughts on this?
I’m making fun of her shallow decision making and poor choices.
Not really, though. You’re just talking about how someone’s personal taste doesn’t align with your personal taste. This is like arguing about favorite colors. It’s a weak position to argue as it’s entirely subjective. It actively undermines any other argument you might be trying to make.
Of all the things to mention, and you’re focused on eyebrows? You sound extremely biased because of this weak argument. It gives the impression that you share this same quality of being shallow. It serves as a potential indicator that you might be unable to pick out relevant detail in a conversation, which also makes you seem like a waste of time to communicate with.
If you’re arguing another point this is detracting from that point. If you’re not arguing another point, then this insipid opinion is irrelevant to the discussion.
This would be awesome, but I just don’t see it happening this way. They have to work with the copyright holders who set those kinds of terms and who have the majority of the leverage in negotiating those terms. Unfortunately, I don’t see any reason this kind of deal would be made.
The business model is to force consumers to purchase and repurchase the same content over and over. Changing only the format, or distribution method, or platform of consumption. This kind of deal would undercut that business model.
What have you explained? That RCS is not stewarded by the IETF? That’s not the crux of the issue. My original claim was that RCS was more open than iMessage and that RCS is not owned or controlled by Google. Tell me where I’m wrong, and back it up with good sources. Or not. Whatever you’re feeling like.
https://www.gsma.com/futurenetworks/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/RCC.07-v11.0.pdf
The specification exists. It’s not free as in beer. This is really beside the point. Google implemented an RCS messaging client. Your cellular carriers implement the RCS endpoints the clients use.
No. I’m sorry. You can’t just say it and make it true. Please show me how Google owns RCS or prevents other developers from implementing it within their own apps.
Google doesn’t own the RCS protocol. This is like saying they own the SMTP protocol because they provide Gmail. They are just one company that has implemented the protocol in their default text message app. They built end-to-end encryption into their implementation, which is currently closed source. I’m guessing this is what you’re referring to.
Anyone can implement RCS. It may cost you some money and some time, but it is possible. That’s the difference I was originally trying to highlight.
Are you sure about that?
In early 2020, it was estimated that RCS was available from 88 operators in 59 countries with approximately 390 million users per month.
but doesn’t play nice with apple.
This isn’t technically wrong, but to be clear, iMessage is closed source. No one can play nice with Apple, in that regard.
RCS on the other hand is a more open standard that anyone is free to implement and use. It just doesn’t come with end-to-end encryption as a part of the standard.
The article says what he’s doing is clearly illegal, and backs it up with the law that he’s violating. He’s offering, through a lottery, a chance to receive payment in order to incentivize people to register to vote. CAH is probably treading close to the line, but I can’t say it’s clearly illegal. What Musk is described as doing seems to be pretty clearly illegal, to me.
Can you explain why you don’t seem to think what Musk is doing is illegal?