I can’t see a business reason why Apple would degrade image sending purposefully- it would drive its own users to get third party apps.

Depends on what the majority of people are using.

In markets where iPhone users are not in the majority, that’s exactly what’s happening: iPhone users are switching to third party apps.

If iPhones users are in the majority, though, then people will just default to iMessage, and non-Apple phones get associated with poor messaging quality. Which creates social pressure for non-iPhone users to buy an iPhone.

So it makes perfect business sense for Apple to degrade the messaging quality when a non-Apple phone joins the conversation.

Must eradicate it.

For the safety and security of our users!

Not all iMessage features can be mapped to RCS, so unless Apple brings iMessage to other platforms, non-Apple phones will always be associated with an inferior messaging experience.

Is it intentionally hostile on Apple’s part to bar androids from joining? Yes. But the reactions from Apple users aren’t entirely unjustified

The reaction from Apple users is to blame Android users - which is entirely unjustified.

But of course, post purchase rationalization and brand loyalty play a big part in why people want to externalize blame rather than questioning their own decision or blaming their favorite company for providing a shitty cross-platform messaging experience.

Beeper already deregistered the numbers, but it takes 24 to 36 hours for Apple servers to forget the deregistered numbers.

The two things go hand in hand, though.

Degraded messaging gets branded with green bubbles. Green bubbles - i.e. non-Apple phones - get associated with degraded messaging. Non-Apple phones get pidgeon-holed as crappy phones for messaging. People get bullied into buying iPhones.

These must be those death panels Republicans warned us of when the Affordable Care Act passed…

It really depends on what a Trump reign will look like, right?

Will he be able to round up tens of millions of people and deport them, as he has promised? Will he institute another Muslim ban, as he has promised? Will he stay in office after his next four year term, as he has said he wants to? Will he use the office of the president to persecute political opponents, as he has promised? Will he “root out” all the “vermin” in the United States, as he had promised? And if yes: who will get declared to be “vermin?” How will they be “rooted out?” Will he make torture legal, as he promised? Will he bring back family separation and child detention camps? Will he threaten nuclear war again? And if yes, will some crazy regime take him up on the offer?

And if all of that or even just a fraction of that comes to pass, will you still sleep well, knowing that you might have been able to stop all of that but voting for the lesser of two evils was just beneath you?

Because ultimately, that’s the decision you’re making.

It’s a show about nothing!!

It’s probably just a definition thing.

To me, constructive criticism means that the criticism doesn’t just point out failure, but that it then also shows how to correct that failure.

By itself, “you’re doing it wrong” is just destructive: it takes something apart, it destroys it. Without a subsequent “and here’s how you would do it right,” it doesn’t become constructive, it doesn’t help in putting things back together in the correct way.

Sure, as a first step, “you’re doing it wrong” is completely justified when something is actually wrong.

But without the second step - the constructive part - it just doesn’t constitute constructive criticism. By itself, it’s just criticism.

Is saying “you’re doing it wrong” really constructive?

Yeah, you’re right. If you put it like that, that totally justifies the cold blooded murder of 265 people.

If the term “allistic” offends you: grow up, it’s a new word. Is learning a new word scary?

I have no particular opinion on the term “allistic,” but what happened to the maxime that each group should get the final say on the terminology applied to that specific group?

Now we’re saying to a specific group “hey, from now on we’ll call you all this new term and you all can just shut up and deal with it, because you don’t get a say?”

Seems like contradicting messages.

I would need much, much more solid proof for this conspiracy theory before believing it.

I don’t doubt Israel had some unspecified warnings, but I just think it’s much more likely that it was a mixture of a misguided belief that Hamas was more interested in political power than large scale terrorism, an assumption that any attack would just be “regular” rocket attacks like we’ve seen in the last years, incompetence of Israeli intelligence services, and an over confidence that the fence and Iron Dome would be enough to stop any attack.

Also, Israel doesn’t need Hamas. Just look at the West Bank where Hamas isn’t in power.

Agree though that Bibi shouldn’t be in power.

Right.

So no changes between 2013 and 2023 standards for petrol cars. No new technology to reduce harmful emissions either.

So there’s no actual argument in favor of a new SUV over a 10 year old car, outside of marginal degradation of the catalytic converter or degradation of the combustion process - most of which should still be caught in emissions tests.

And even then, properly maintaining the car, replacing the catalytic converter or even replacing the 10 year old car with a new car of the same size instead of upsizing to an SUV would all be better for the environment than buying a new SUV.

How so? Cars have to pass emissions tests, and ten year old cars have to pass them, too.

Also: what significant improvements in filtering out “other types of emissions” have there been made in consumer vehicles in the last 10 years, and what “other types of emissions” are those?

It’s also such a race to outsize other vehicles.

I know SUV drivers who bought an SUV because “everyone owns an SUV, and if you’re driving around in a smaller car, you can’t see anything around you any more.” They’re not even wrong, in some communities it’s getting really hard to participate in traffic of you’re constantly surrounded by much larger, taller cars on all sides.

But of course, they’re now just perpetuating the problem.

Not because national anthems are political, that’s one of the dunbest things that’s been said in this thread

Many national anthems are fairly radical political manifestos.

Just because they’ve been put to some music and we’ve gotten used to them doesn’t make them any less radical.

It’s funny to think that statements like “arise, children of the fatherland, against the bloody flag of tyranny” or “O Lord our God arise, scatter our enemies and make them fall!” or “Let’s unite, we’re ready to die! For centuries we’ve been stamped on and laughed at because we’re not one people” should be completely okay and everybody should stand and listen in awe, but “black lives matter” would be too radical and too political for the same setting.

It’s not that you’re not saying it often enough, it’s that you’re stopping halfway through what’s being proposed here.

You’re seeing it as a one-sided, negative thing for the Palestinian side that the atrocities of Hamas are being “singled out” - but you’re completely ignoring the fact that they’re being “singled out” in order to be hidden from children.

This means that children would never learn - at least not on their own, via social media - of these atrocities committed by Hamas. That would appear like a net positive for the Palestinian side.

You’re getting caught up in the “singling out” part while ignoring the “in order to hide it from children” part.

There’s been really no follow-up on whether or not that STD ever cleared up, either…