1760
reminder (lemmy.world)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] null@slrpnk.net -2 points 1 year ago

Aww, you actually believe that!

[-] FooBarrington@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago

Shouldn't take you more than 5 minutes to prove me wrong. Please do!

[-] null@slrpnk.net 0 points 1 year ago

It shouldn't take me more than 5 minutes? Why's that?

[-] FooBarrington@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago

Because - as I've explained in the comment you replied to - it's pretty easy to check it for yourself. Unless you believe that an Echo has a secondary cellular connection that's only used while muted, any traffic must go over your configured connection.

Just look at the amount of transferred data while it's muted. If there is data (beyond extremely low background traffic) I'm wrong. If there is no data, you're wrong.

This is not some hypothetical metaphysical principle we're talking about, it's a product that you can analyse yourself. Put up or shut up.

[-] null@slrpnk.net 0 points 1 year ago

And I can do that all in 5 minutes without owning one?

[-] FooBarrington@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago

Easily. The device doesn't care who owns it, you can use one owned by another person.

[-] null@slrpnk.net 0 points 1 year ago

I don't know anyone who owns one either.

But go ahead, do your experiment and report back. Should only take you 5 minutes to prove your claim.

[-] FooBarrington@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

Why should I do it, when plenty of people have already done so, and reported the results I talked about?

[-] null@slrpnk.net 0 points 1 year ago
[-] FooBarrington@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

Are you unable to Google, or are you acting willfully dense?

First example I found: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00779-018-1174-x

[-] null@slrpnk.net -3 points 1 year ago

Lol that looks like 5 minutes of work to you?

[-] FooBarrington@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago

No, a study that studies way more than what I described doesn't look like 5 minutes of work to me, why would it?

[-] null@slrpnk.net -3 points 1 year ago

So you gonna spot me the $40?

[-] FooBarrington@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Why would I? Why isn't the study I've linked sufficient?

Why do you want me to disprove something you should easily be able to prove, and that other people have already disproven?

[-] null@slrpnk.net -2 points 1 year ago

The study you linked is behind a $40 paywall

[-] FooBarrington@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago
  1. Have you never heard of Sci-Hub or other services to circumvent such paywalls?
  2. As I said, more than enough people have made such studies.

You could have easily figured out either of those if you were taking this conversation seriously. You obviously aren't, so I'll stop here.

[-] null@slrpnk.net -2 points 1 year ago

So that's a no on the $40?

this post was submitted on 16 Oct 2023
1760 points (99.3% liked)

internet funeral

6925 readers
1 users here now

ㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤart of the internet

What is this place?

!hmmm@lemmy.world with text and titles

• post obscure and surreal art with text

• nothing memetic, nothing boring

• unique textural art images

• Post only images or gifs (except for meta posts)

Guidlines

• no video posts are allowed

• No memes. Not even surreal ones. Post your memes on !surrealmemes@sh.itjust.works instead

• If your submission can be posted to !hmmm@lemmy.world (I.e. no text images), It should be posted there instead

This is a curated magazine. Post anything and everything. It will either stay up or be lost into the void.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS