Re:Americans are spending billions on stuff they forget to c...
by robertlagrant on Saturday January 20, 2024 @06:57AM
(#39066761)
> why did you make a point about it requiring work?
Because a previous comment said it wouldn't require work. Now you also are saying they'd need to implement it. So we agree it needs work.
> Just admit your argument made no sense
Framing this as "admit" might make it seem like a fait accomplis, but I need a higher bar than that to be persuaded. Biased language only fools very basic readers.
> they're just not comparable.
Why not?
Re:Americans are spending billions on stuff they forget to c...
by mtlmtlmtlmtl on Saturday January 20, 2024 @07:09AM
(#39066858)
Sigh. If you're not capable of admitting when you're wrong I feel bad for you. There's no shame in it you know. I'm wrong about stuff frequently, but at least I'll happily admit it.
Life is too short to waste energy clinging onto bad arguments simply out of spite or poor self-esteem. Embrace cummingham's law.
Have a good life.
Re:Americans are spending billions on stuff they forget to c...
by robertlagrant on Saturday January 20, 2024 @05:02PM
(#39072880)
Your sighing, nonspecific berating of me that I'm wrong, and assuming I must be spiteful or have poor self esteem are all nonsense, I'm afraid. Make an argument, and stop the ad hominem.
It does matter that it's easier. In fact it can be automated. If a user is inactive for 30 days, the subscription could be disabled and automatically reenabled if and when they decide to use it. You wanna argue that would be a lot of work to implement?
And yes, I think this would be reasonable for someone like Netflix, and unreasonable for a paper magazine. What's so hard to understand about that? they're just not comparable.