LwL

If it's 0.3 cents (and google seems to agree it is) then it's really not spotify's fault, other than they could increase their prices or you could consider their business model bad.

I'd estimate I listen to around 80 songs a day on average (through youtube music in my case), which comes out to 2400 songs a month. 0.3 cents per song would then be around 7 bucks total. Dunno how much it is in the US but a spotify premium subscription is 11€/month here. If I'm around average (which I would guess I am) that would leave around 4,50€/month for spotify to pay for everything else that the users existence costs.

They seem to currently be making around 10% of their revenue in profits (after being in the red for years afaik). So i guess around 3,40€ of those pay for costs, 1,10€ is profit. If we throw all of that back to the artists, we're not even rounding to the next fraction of a cent.

And even though the ceo makes obscene amounts of money, giving all of that to the artists also won't make a dent.

Voluntary support of creators, through bandcamp or patreon or kofi or whatever (or more classically merch), seems to work for many (and i spend more on that than my yt music subscription). And honestly it will have to be the future (though afaik small artists never made a lot from record sales anyway bc the publisher took most of it). If music streaming gets much more expensive, people will probably just go back to pirating.

Spotify has its issues but paying the artists more is simply not feasible as it stands. Unless it's actually 0.003 cents in which case thats a joke.

I have very positive experience with that thing actually. It fixed many a wifi issue for me (interestingly, while also saying it couldn't find the issue. It just fixed it. Probably ran something as part of its diagnostics that happened to also fix the problem)

Stare at it. Ignoring cats will make them like you, bevause to cats, not being looked at is a sign of trust.

I agree in principle, and overall violent revolution is likely to be a horrible thing for many, but I think the issue for people is that they've tried the peaceful way and get suppressed by every system that exists. Threatening the rich isn't about getting rid of them per se (at least it shouldn't be, because new people will just fill the void) but about applying pressure for those with the most power to enact change to do so, hopefully leading to a less exploitative system.

It's not that hard to keep people happy enough for them to not try to literally murder you, but if you fail at even that, you might have the drive to change it.

Oh no I agree, feel free to break that rule, just don't make it the flight staff's problem.

Yea, they just have to enforce it, not make sensible rules. Just let them do their jobs in peace and go petition the relevant aviation authorities if it bothers you that much.

It's just the opposite social expectation here. And honestly it bothers me not because some people do it but because it feels like american puritanism taking over online spaces because it's even in screenshots. Like holy shit you're quoting someone just leave the swearing in.

No, really that doesn't make it ok. You're generalizing half the population. It's not my fault that other people are and have been trash, it's not my fault that I was born male, and it sure feels great to be generalized with the assholes when I wish every night to just magically wake up with a cis woman's body (for various reasons am not transitioning and run around as male presenting).

Yea pretty much. I have no idea if going inside just to throw stuff away is considered ok (always felt a bit weird) but for the most part it's not too bad to find a place to throw stuff away.

Which is entirely seperate from having a grasp on how much money it is you're borrowing and how hard it will be to pay back

The first paragraph of the article answers that... it discourages healthy weights and recommends dangerously low calorie diets.