Farid

Oh right, didn’t pay enough attention. But it was the first thing I saw in the morning.

Shouldn’t 7/10" actually be 7/20"?

I’m not criticizing the screens, they are ok and I loved my Pebble Time Steel until the battery swelled and popped off the screen. I’m just saying that calling these e-paper is a deceptive marketing strategy.

From the Verge article:

The first watch that Migicovsky and Core plan to ship is called the Core 2 Duo (not to be confused with the old Intel processor), which Migicovsky says will cost $149 and will ship in July. […] It has the exact same black-and-white e-paper display as the old Pebble 2 (technically a transflective LCD, if you’re curious)

As I mentioned earlier, whether a screen type is considered e-paper is subjective. And in my opinion, reflective LCD isn’t a type of e-paper. You may disagree, but it’s not “categorically” wrong.

Quote is from Wikipedia. You can see it’s the case for both models here:

• Pebble
• Pebble Time

Besides, I own a Pebble Time watch and can tell you, it doesn’t perform like a typical e-paper. It has the bad viewing angles of LCD and screen goes blank when power is lost.

The watch featured a 32-millimetre (1.26 in) 144 × 168 pixel black and white memory LCD using an ultra low-power “transflective LCD”

The problem is that e-paper is a category of displays, and some companies label reflective LCDs as “e-paper”. Which is subjective (and I personally heavily disagree with that categorization, cause then LCD clocks and Gameboys have “e-paper” displays, too).

But in the comment I responded to it was said Pebble has “eink” display, which is categorically wrong, as that is a very specific proprietary technology, which is e-paper in traditional sense, like the ones in Kindles.

IIRC, it has a reflective LCD, not epaper display.

Thanks, good to know.

Technically, sideloading is possible already, but you need a developer account, you’re limited to 3 sideloaded apps at a time, and you have to renew them every week.

So the more difficult way already exists.

Doesn’t make my comment not true.

And I don’t filter or block anything or anyone. Rawdogging Lemmy, the way God intended.

Lemmy, this is the 7th day in a row you’ve shown “Tesla sales down in Europe” news in Top.

I don’t think anybody in Seychelles ever seeds on purpose. Being a remote island (archipelago), the internet prices are insane. Almost nobody has uncapped internet, mostly only business.

Remembering how Subset Games is notoriously anti-mobile I looked into it. Turns out, as usual, they did not intend to release a mobile port, just like with FTL. They have an FTL iPad port, but refused to release an Android port due to piracy concerns, claiming it wasn’t worth the effort to bother with the port. But Netflix approached them and sponsored the mobile ports for Into the Breach. In other words, if not for Netflix, the game would not have been playable on mobile at all. This likely applies to all the other Netflix exclusive games, they don’t buy licenses, they sponsor the ports.

And even if they were just buying licenses and making games available only through Netflix, then go complain to the game devs, not Netflix. Devs are the ones who agreed to it when they were offered money.

Never used Prime, so can’t comment.

Hmm, didn’t know that one was exclusive to Netflix. It’s not a universal thing or a rule, cause San Andreas Definitive Edition, for example, is available for purchase for $20. Probably depends on what the game publisher agreed to.

I think you’re looking at it the wrong way. It’s just an extra that you have for “free”, not a dedicated gaming subscription. I also live in Europe and my Netflix is cheap, so I will have the subscription by default (cause a lot of people in my family watch it), which means I get to try the games for free. You can always just go buy them if you want, from the store.

Where did I say “government does stuff”? If a service is provided not for profit, funded by the community and is otherwise not privately owned, it’s socialist. It needs to be for-profit and/or privately owned to be capitalist.

Arguably, The US does have several socialist policies, albeit implemented very badly. For instance, public education. Does capitalism stick its grubby fingers into it from every possible angle? Yes. But at its core it has collective funding through taxes (therefore owned/controlled by the state), universal access, and the prioritization of public welfare over profit (at least on paper). Those principles are strictly socialist and not capitalist.

It’s not about strictly “owning”, it’s about controlling. Control can be achieved in many different ways, including, but not limited to regulations. Socialism is an economic system, of which you can implements certain parts.
I didn’t say “social policies”. Socialist policies are a more specific subset of social policies, so all socialist policies are social policies, but not all social policies are socialist.
Regarding the European countries’ degree of being socialist, it of course depends on the country. But on average, you might be right, and perhaps using “equally” was an exaggeration.