joshhsoj1902

Publish date "2019" ya that makes sense. If this was the case before the pandemic it certainly isn't anymore.

The methodology of this study isn't very convincing IMO. Study 1 is irrelevant (self reported subjective data). Study 2 implys that a small sample size picking to use stairs instead of an elevator to go up one floor means one group is more healthy, this is meaningless IMO,. Study 3 just looks at which groups intend on quitting smoking, with the conservative group being more likely to be wanting to quit. I could jump to a number of conclusions from this that have nothing to do with "personal responsibility".

Overall what a waste of my time.

Edit: I just went and looked at the Reddit comments on this post, they also tore it apart with some decent numbers showing how wrong the this is.

Fair, I may have misunderstood. I assumed the only way the city could help would be financially.

You likely had something else in mind.

Why on earth would you expect a city to jump in and fix a provincial issue???

I never understand why so many people are constantly making excuses for provincial governments who don't do their job.

Sponsors pay more upfront. If creators are only using sponsors than their whole back catalogue is basically valueless. If it costs a creator 2-10 cents a month to host a video (based off S3 pricing), but they only made 1000$ on it upfront when the video was made, overtime the back catalogue becomes a pretty significant financial burden if it's not being monetized

Also it's worth keeping in mind that many people are also using tools to autoskip sponsor spots, and the only leverage creators have for being paid by sponsors are viewership numbers.

Patreon is irrelevant, that's just like Nebula, floatplane etc, it's essentially a subscription based alternative to YouTube.

Discoverability is pointless if the people discovering you aren't going to financial contribute. It's the age old "why don't you work for me for free, the exposure I provide will make it worth your time", that hasn't been true before and likely isn't here. Creators aren't looking to work for free (at least not the ones creating the high quality content we're used to today)

The protocol isn't the hard part. It's the monetizing that is. Creators aren't looking to provide content for free, especially if they are also now paying for hosting costs.

Ad spots (like Google does) work well because they can inject an up to date ad into an old video. In something like the fedeverse today a creators only option would be ads baked into the video, but they would only get paid for that up front which isn't ideal...

I fail to follow how a competitor can pop up if the main users it's attracting are ones that don't want to view ads or pay for subscriptions.

Which is totally fair. There is so much misinformation flying around about this tax. The rich are flexing every muscle they have to try to make the general population dislike this change.

This change has no impact of the sale of a primary residence.

If they are selling a secondary residence and that sale is resulting in over 250k in profit than they are impacted, as they should be.

I had read that post already. Even if there are things that she's doing that isn't great, it doesn't really justify a group of people circlejerking hate about them.

From the posts I've seen so far, it feels like the community is stating that they only exist to criticize what they see as a misleading influencer, but to me it all comes off as bullying/harrassment.

If they want to encourage change of some sort they could try and do that, but that's not what the posts are encouraging, it feels like generic woman hate targeted at a single woman.

You keep suggesting opinions are fact... Anonymous posts aren't facts regardless of how much you want to believe their contents.

Yes education does give people abase for learning how to fact check, but anyone (including you) can learn.

The post in this case isn't even creded let alone creditable.

Things like the NYT and Washington Post are only creditable in the sense they link to their sources when they can, and when they can't they can stand behind their reputation because they do share sources when they can.

But a single source isn't enough to suggest that something is true. You as a reader need to be reading multiple sources and angles onbthebsake topic to get a healthy view on it, but those sources can't be mostly opinion pieces (which is all you post).

An opinion piece in the NYT or Washington Post is just as useless as the majority of what you're posting.