Worth it.
I'd like to know how much of that price drop is now supported by increasing ads and ACR served up by these TVs. And how prices might be affected if actions like those in Texas and elsewhere expand.
Spying on you just isn't profitable enough to justify giving you a tangible discount on a TV. Also, what data can it collect that another broker couldn't do a better job of acquiring? Why spy on you when they can order your data from a broker with greater correlation and accuracy?
Spying on you through your TV is kinda like putting a hidden camera in to watch yourself shower...there are better ways of getting the same show!
I'll leave it as an exercise to the reader to figure out why a TV with less features would cost more.
A dumb TV is niche. It's sold in less volume as most want a smart TV. Most don't give a shit about privacy or data ownership. Most just want to watch Netflix and chill.
Similarly, a manual lever espresso machine costs more than a fully automatic one. A Mr Coffee electric coffee maker costs less than an aeropress or even most cheap pourover cones. Manual transmission cars cost more than automatic ones these days.
What then about the stories that are freely available on multiple sites, but we get The Guardian's version here? It bothers me because The Guardian explicitly denounced journalistic objectivity, announced that their opinions were the correct ones, and still want to be treated like the journalists they aren't.
So, this kind of study may be able to show some interesting things about how the pendulum is swinging, as we may be able to infer what kinds of laws are being passed by looking at which are being called into question. But that's about it.
The Court doesn't care about the finances of the parties involved unless it is a significant fact in the dispute. The Court doesn't even care if someone is guilty or innocent. Those aren't the matters they deal with. It's the Constitutional court, so it deals with the more abstract principles. The members of the Court get lifetime appointments in order to help shelter them from what the parties care about. That's what Congress is for
Naturally though, the justices have their own views on what is or is not Constitutional, and those will generally line up with the attitudes of the President/party who appointed them. The more liberal justices will be inclined to think that what Democrats want to do is Constitutional, and vice versa. Democrats controlled Congress for most of the last seven decades. Republican Presidents appointed more justices. Many of our laws are constitutionally dubious. Laws Democrats passed are the most dubious (at least in my view
This study was clearly framed to produce a particular result for political use. They scoped it carefully and ignored the most important factor in each decision. I could retitle it as, "Court records show that Democrats wrote the most unconstitutional laws, and brought the most frivolous cases, for 70 years", and their data would support it.
I like your username. Even though you'd never get your heart going, not even a mouse on a wheel.
You use an ad blocker, right? Are you getting this html-load.com crap here on
Now, if you think he specifically meant OnlyFans "models", and it is possible that I misunderstood, then I would hope he sees this:
https://ancillary-proxy.atarimworker.io?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.reuters.com%2Finvest...
Nah, won't leave it to chance. I'll reply to that post again.
All that OneDrive does locally is to change the location of three profile folders and move the contents. And move them back if backups are turned off. I'll guess that there was a link/shortcut somewhere that had the un-backed-up path? I haven't seen it lock a file when syncing.
All laws are simulations of reality. -- John C. Lilly
