We don’t know how much she pays, but yeah. It’s quite likely she does pay that much (and it may or may not pay off - if she gets one extra long term customer paying $100 per session, every week, for a year, that easily pays for a couple hundred clicks that go nowhere. OTOH the 99% of people who don’t need a LSCW but click the pin just to figure out what it is, why it shows up on the map, or what the acronym stands for aren’t going to provide any benefit…).

Ads/Marketing/customer acquisition are unbelievably expensive (and thus also a huge business).

So oder so ist es umständlicher für den Kunden, und ein Pfandsystem macht es nochmal umständlicher und teurer.

Ist die Frage ob der Umwelt damit gedient ist wenn der Paketdienst ein zweites Mal kommt um die Verpackung abzuholen…

Mich würde auch interessieren wie die Rücklaufquote beim Tchibo-experiment war. Ich würde erwarten, dass Kunden nicht begeistert sind, wenn der Händler extra “Hausaufgaben” produziert, und das Teil einfach in den Restmüll kloppen.

White screen, no video.

That sounds like something Jackass would do.

Those are indeed ads.

I believe the business pays per click. I’ve seen (edit) only one estimate for the cost, claiming $2 to $6 per click. (https://www.shopify.com/retail/google-maps-ads)

(I previously had mentioned a second estimate but that was for regular ads)

Wahnsinn. Strafbefehle sind eigentlich für Lappalien gedacht. Hier haben sowohl der Richter als auch die Staatsanwaltschaft ihre Jobs nicht gemacht.

(Für die, die den Artikel nicht lesen wollen: erledigt im Strafbefehlsverfahren, womit die Angehörigen als Nebenkläger auch keine Berufung gegen das zu niedrige Urteil erheben können).

I would much rather pay for a missile that Ukraine fires against a Russian tank in Ukraine, than pay for a missile I have to fire against the Russian tank myself after it rolled through Ukraine and to my doorstep.

I would also much rather pay to educate the world (using Russia as an example) that the international community isn’t putting up with wars of aggression and won’t let you get away with them, than have the world thrown into disarray when the next country decides to disrupt global supply chains with their war of aggression.

Supporting Ukraine is a smart thing regardless of what you think of Ukraine. It’s also the morally right thing, but if you don’t care about that, egoism should drive you to the same decision.

Decent? I know I’ve heard about him before he decided to go to Russia to be arrested and slowly killed.

I still don’t understand why he committed suicide-by-Putin.

Did he really have more influence as a martyr in prison than a free man in exile?

I see two three pin 3.5mm stereo plugs (one of them color coded for the headphones and one for the mic), and zero 4-pin combo plugs?

How many of these mosques show secondary explosions after getting hit?

Might want a Western one, I’ve heard the Russian ones like to explode and toss their turret when hut by a Cybertruck.

Skipping the wordle by messing with the system clock feels like cheating.

Weird. The article does have today’s date but only mentions the Nov 10 decision. I think maybe what happened today is the publication of the full text of the decision?

It’d be great if that was how it works, unfortunately it seems like the penalties are closer to once every 3-5 years than monthly, skewing the balance even further to “screw the law, just pay the fee”:(

I’d say that’s a huge problem actually.

For a normal company, abusing data is a small part of their business and profit is a few percent of revenue, so such a fine would be devastating.

For some tech companies, profit is in the double digit percent of revenue and half of it comes from breaking the law, so the 4% are a tax they can happily pay and still be more profitable than if they followed the law.

Same misleading nonsense. If you follow the links it becomes obvious that it’s the old news banning FB from using the data on the basis of contract and legitimate interest - which they’re avoiding by claiming “consent” after people choose that they’d rather not pay a triple-digit amount per year to use the site.

No, the article is just regurgitating old news and the old misleading claim (omitting the critical part that they’re only banned from using data “on the basis of contract and legitimate interest”).

This “news” is what made Facebook start with the “agree or pay” bullshit.

mild_shock.jpg