Changing the acceptable terminology every decade is never going desegregate a neighborhood, or shrink demographic wealth disparities, or improve health outcomes, etc. I think it's mostly a distraction so people can feel like they're doing something.
hypna
joined 1 year ago
Quite right. I did get one with speakers, but they were even worse than I expected. I bought a sound bar to go with it. There are also a few quirks that remind me it's a commercial display. Like there's no power button on the unit. I have to use the remote. I suppose one wouldn't want their signage turned off by randos.
Bad bot. That URL just has a /c/ in it. Although connect also seems to be screwing up.
I went on that journey a couple years ago. What I ended up buying is technically considered "digital signage" rather than a TV. Basically zero bloat. You may have to pay a little extra but I don't recall it being that much. Pretty sure I got it here.
This is one of those arguments that never made sense to me. People like to say that adding lanes just creates more traffic, but what is the proposed mechanism? Does anyone suppose that people who didn't want to go somewhere suddenly remembered that the highway added more lanes, and then decided to go for a cruise?
It suggests to me that the demand for transit far exceeds capacity, or that this traffic would otherwise have just taken a different route. Probably some of both.
That's not an argument to just build 15 lane highways everywhere, just that the common form of the supply creates demand argument seems implausible.
I use whatever terminology is current, because, like I said, it basically makes no difference. Why upset people for no reason?