I think there's SmartTube for smartTv's. Not sure how parental control stuff works.

Yeah, Nebula is great. But other than being not Google, their platform works in similar ways. You pay, you get content.. I mean, how could they even change that anyway?

Or 5. It holds 6 people... 4 € per person best case. As for now, they aren't enforcing same household sharing only, like Netflix do. I can't tell you about the future.

Also, not to support such behaviour, but if you aren't made of money, I'm totally okay with you teleporting to Argentina, subscribing to YT Premium at maybe 5 $ a month, and teleporting back to never go there again. That doesn't require an argentinian CC.

I'm not sure about legal technicalities, but I do know that it currently works. Personally, I don't risk it if they ever decide to ban associated accounts, because u know, they totally can refuse to service you, if they were to feel like it.

Basically, not sure how Apple does it though. You have a Google family group. You can add individual accounts to that. The group owner cannot see any activities of other accounts, but he could remove people without their permission.

Removed users only lose active family subscriptions like youtube premium and google one (storage). Their watch histories and whatnot will remain the same. Watch out with Google one. If you have Google one and use more storage than google free, then remove google one, you only get a limited time period to remove data over the limit. Afterwards it gets inaccessible, I don't think they delete anything, but no insurance on that.

The textbook this person owns:

service provider: "Hello, I'm a window cleaner, do you want me to clean your windows? I'll actually do it for free this time! Please recommend me to your peers"

customer: "yes please"

service provider: "all done! Want me to do it again in three months time?"

customer: "yes, I love free stuff!"

service provider: "actually, I'd have to charge for that, can't work for free all the time."

customer: "Racketeering!"

Lass einfach gar kein Ziele mehr setzen, für die Umsetzung muss man ja was tun und das ist viel Arbeit.

20k will not get you a 3 bedroom home. Do you by chance live in West Virginia? Their median home values is under 200k, and even then, 20k won't get you there. Trust me homeboy, 20k will not get you far, not even in the cheapest of regions.

The median US house value is 430k. The lowest legal downpayment is 3%, but that's plain stupid. Financially, anything under 20% makes no sense. Your mortgage will be super high and you'll have to pay for morgage insurance which you don't have to do if you do a downpayment above 20%.

Also, if it's so cheap and easy to buy a house, why isn't everyone buying a house right now? The majority of millenials and forward are renting and you're telling me half a year of rent is enough for them to get a house? Clearly they would have figured that one out by now.

Just so you understand my living standards. I do not own a car at all. I could financially afford one, but that wouldn't be a sensible investment.

I can't say I had such a civilized discussion on reddit. At least I can't remember. Typical reddit discussions always felt a bit more filled with emotion, maybe hatred. Lots of shitposting too. Might have to do something with the more targeted demographic of Lemmy.

Something being a business model actually doesn't mean it's right. Dropshipping exists after all. Paying everyone for their services can't be a viable solution either. The main business model here usually consists of "pay to upgrade". If you don't pay, it kinda works. If you do want to pay, it works really well. BitWarden is my personal hero in that regard. Their product works really well as freeware. It works even better when you pay for it. But I believe many paying users don't even need the additional functionality, they just pay to give something back. Moral retribution so to speak.

I see how blocking ads on freeware isn't morally wrong, I mean there's not much that's universally immoral. It's quite the topic in ethics, deontology says some acts are universally bad or universally good, no matter the consequences. A common example is honesty: being honest is always good, but I'm sure you thought of a dozen examples where honesty might not be the "good" way.

I still do agree with you. Blocking ads in specific instances can be completely fine. I mean we could construct setups where not blocking ads might lead to nuclear war. But I truly believe that it's fine in everyday use. You don't wanna see ads, they annoy you, you don't feel like paying with your time and brain cells. An individual avoiding ads is so inconsequential for everyone else involved, utilitaristically, that's a net gain of happines. On the other hand, ethics is not a study about individual actions, that's morals. I don't believe that any ethics could realistically support such a choice in the grand scheme. Assuming everyone acts by those rules, buying advert slots is wasted money.

Luckily we are indiviudals and like you said a day ago, there's enough people paying their taxes for you to evade them without consequences for either party.

I, in this instance, decided it's not about the company per se, it's more about the individual action. I'm no sucker for Nestlé, but you can't argue that they don't do good things as well. They are quite the big player in vegan meat alternatives and they actually do seem to put in quite the work to make sensible products in said category. They superficially seem to be sustainable and healthier than many other comparable products. Even if that's not true, even if their products are shipped around the globe eleven times a day, it's pushing for something that's ecologically sensible. If they themselves don't produce an ecological product, they still help to establish shelf space for other, more ecological products. So yeah, I'd buy a Nestlé product in that case. Even just to show Nestlé and the stores that such a product is in demand.

There's other scenarios where I don't act by the same logic simply because I'm a human and humans aren't known for being all that logical after all.

I'm a capitalist consumer and I greatly profit from my financial situation each and every day. I do live in a way too big apartment after all, and plans for individual housing are on the way. Not very ethical in the grand scheme xD

I can tell your house is nothing like what I'd wanna live in. If you can get a house for maybe 70k, yeah a downpayment of 20k works.

In most places a house will likely be 500k or above. Let's just say 500k for the sake of argument.. it's a simple number for your simple brain. You'll have to pay at least 20% up front. That's 100k in my example. However, that's quite an unreasonable thing to do in recent years, so I better suggest your downpayment be more than 30%, or 150k in this example. Generally, 40% is s very good downpayment in terms of long term financial security... that's already 200k. So yes. 200k is what the average person should expect. 20k wouldn't even get you the land.

I'm with you, homeboy.

No use justifying your wrongdoings by pointing at what anybody else did.

If you think Google or YouTube are evil, bad or immoral, just avoid em.

To end Place, they remove all colours except white. This way, Place dies a natural death as soon as the last non-white pixel turns white.

Using Snapchat to actually chat sounds so frustrating.

Less than 15 USD a YEAR.