I gave up on Spotify as I started to listen to more podcasts which had their own ads inside them let alone Spotify's. Now I'm paying for Youtube (never thought I'd be doing that) and using the new(ish) jump ahead feature to skip in-video ad segments including in video podcasts. Problem largely solved?
This is a long long log fuelled by your very obtuse way of talking to Gemini. It's matching your tone, and feeding your loaded questions with loaded answers to fit your narrative.
I don't see any threats, I likely missed them in my scan down the sections, but it does just seem like it tried to meet you in the middle and its output flew over your head as it miscalculated the bro-speak conspiracy theory level you were at.
"honestly i know where the next "revolution" should be happening. those who get it, get it.
let those who dont waste their money
bye"
Hilarious way to speak to Gemini. It's going to spew that right back at you.
I cannot wait for Oatly's next marketing campaign that lampoons this decision.
This does nothing to stop the rise of dairy alternatives, nor should it. Nobody is going to stop asking for oat/soy/nut milk when putting in their drink order, just because corporations can't use the term. It's common parlance now, and using 'milk' to refer to a non-dairy liquid has been done for hundreds of years at this point.
Now that multi bilion dollar international corporations rely on retaining their brand image in a market sector, those sectors now have to be policed to protect said brands and corporations. Its nothing to do with what has been called what for hundreds of years, its nothing to do with what people call it when they order a latte at Starbucks. Its everything to do with protecting profits in a defined food category.
I don’t have an EV and will not purchase one anytime soon. I would be interested in purchasing an extended range hybrid. I’ve had this discussion with many of my friends and most are not ready to purchase an EV but like myself are interested in a plug-in hybrid. A 100 range allow for all my local driving to be electric and I could still do my long range driving without adding the additional time for charging. I do drives of 9 - 13 hours at least 8-10 times a year and some years more often. Those drives are already long enough. I don’t want to add the additional time charging takes. Over that long of a drive the time adds up.
I think the real problem is that the car industry is refusing to make affordable vehicles and a big part of that is size. Americans might want huge vehicles but they can't all afford them. Chinese manufacturers, alone, are pursuing the affordable EV market, the same way that Chinese manufacturers, alone, are pursing the affordable drone market.
It's not the size of the car per se, but the vast amount of technology and features crammed into the car that drives up the cost. An old VW bus could fit a lot of people, but was still produced cheaply compared to production costs today. That old bus had no self-driving, no power windows, no lane assist, no anti-lock brakes, no automatic transmission, no infotainement center, no air suspension, no automatic seat adjustments or backup camera, no soundproofing, no heads up display, no A/C, it didn't beep when something was in your blind spots, it had no crumple zones or other safety features. I'm not even sure if it had a catalytic converter. Just think of the huge number of electrical computer modules and the hundreds of miles of wiring, the millions of lines of software code. And those computers need to work in the Arizona heat when you park your car in the sun, even though you might fry a consumer grade laptop if you left it in the same car.
That's why smaller cars aren't that much cheaper. They are still crammed with all these features.
The BLS measures inflation which requires making the much maligned hedonic adjustments, which is basically saying things like "the new widget holds twice as much memory" or "this car also has an airbag". For automobiles, they look at production costs, and when you take production costs into account, cars aren't that much more expensive in real terms today. We just cram so many features into them now.
What do you mean? America has 2 offerings from Chevy, and now the Slate truck as well. Japan has the Nissan Leaf. Korea and Germany produce a few cheap EVs too. None of these vehicles are large and all of them are focused on being cheap for the mass market. The PRC's offerings rely on favorable currency positioning and extremely apathetic labor conditions (leading to better cost-efficiency). It's not an industrialist's miracle.
Not all the advantages though, hybrids need oil changes, transmission fluid changes, water pump, spark plugs, timing belts, etc. all the maintenance burden of an ICE that EVs do not carry.
I’d rather have an ev with a diesel generator in the pickup bed as my “range extender” than a vehicle with constant maintenance needs.
I can dream of hooking up a generator on a trailer…
I also dream of getting a used Nissan Leaf because most of my trips are to and from town 20 minutes away and we already had gas cars that can take longer trips. If my son wasn’t bringing home old cars I might be able to make the space for it but right now I can’t.
Article gave me a chuckle, been in this exact situation multiple times.
However, it's not GTM's fault, at all. GTM gives marketers a very powerful suite of tools that they normally have to rely on devs for. In fact it gives them site-breaking power.
But it's not GTM's fault a marketer can't track a button click in the scenarios. The marketer just needs to push the responsibility back to the dev who made the crummy site. GTM can't help if a site is built in an opaque manner. GTM can't help if a marketer can't learn to use it competently either.
This activity would trigger Google's Spambrain algorithm and ensure the backlinks were fully ignored.
Depending on the volume (100k is a lot) a human check may be made and result in a manual action against the site which would lower discoverability.
Discoverability correlates with link velocity, if velocity is uneven it is suspicious and punished.
It would help crawling and indexing technically but that's something you can do for free via Google Search Console with sitemap submission and manual index requests.
Automated backlink creation is and always will be a 100% bad idea in the short and long term. It is a waste of money and effort and only every something scammers and bad product managers endorse for their own benefit. Any positive effect always turns out to be misattributed.
This further exposes just how pointless and ill-thought out the Online Safety Act was in the UK. It does nothing to actually limit harm at the source, and empower the UK's public body's to take immediate action.
Ironic that the minister who spearheaded that awful bill (Peter Kyle) as Tech minister is now being the government spokesperson for this debacle as Business Minister. The UK needs someone who knows how tech and business works to tackle this, and that's not Peter Kyle.
A platform suspension in the UK should have been swift, with clear terms for how X can be reinstated. As much as it appears Musk is doubling down on letting Grok produce CSAM as some form of free speech, the UK government should treat it as a limited breach or bug that the vendor needs to resolve, whilst taking action to block the site causing harm until they've fixed it.
Letting X and Grok continue to do harm, and get free PR, is just the worst case scenario for all involved.
The draft Online Safety Bill was first published in 2021, was substantially re-written and re-introduced in early 2022, was amended over the course of the next 18 months, and eventually passed into law as the Online Safety Act in October 2023.
Peter Kyle was in opposition until July 2024, so how could he have spearheaded it?
Because he implemented it under his tenure in July 2025. He didn't come up with it, he spearheaded its actual implementation. Sorry if that wasn't clear.
Why would it make no sense? Like many bills/acts, it came into effect in stages. You're referring to new laws/crimes that came into effect in January 2024.
I'm referring to the Act's powers to compel companies to actually do things in my original comment. I don't know exactly when various parts came into effect that would constitute that, but for the point of my post I'm going on Peter Kyle's own website's dated reference to holding companies accountable.
"As of the 24th July 2025, platforms now have a legal duty to protect children"
I don't understand why people are taking issue with that. Peter Kyle is the minister who delivered the measures from the bill that a lot of people are angry about and this latest issue on X is just another red flag that the bill is poorly worded and thought out putting too much emphasis on ID age checks for citizens than actually stopping any abuse. Peter Kyle is the one who called out objections to the bill as being on the "side of predators". Peter Kyle is now the one, despite having moved department, who is somehow commenting on this issue.
Totally happy to call out the Tories, and prior ministers who worked on the Bill/Act but Kyle implemented it, made reckless comments about, and now is trying to look proactive about an issue it covers that it's so ineffectively applying to.
> this latest issue on X is just another red flag that the bill is poorly worded and thought out putting too much emphasis on ID age checks for citizens than actually stopping any abuse.
The bill is designed to protect children from extreme sexual violence, extreme pornography and CSAM.
Partisan politics has rotted peoples brains, I wonder if it is by design to lower peoples critical thinking skills or if it is just a fringe benefit from the tribalism it creates.
reply