I’m not trying to be rude here, but please read my post. Paying to remove ads is part of the ad business model. Anyone who pays to remove ads means the developer profited from ads.
Almost all of Syncs business model is ads. The free version has ads and almost everyone who pays for it is doing so to remove ads. Which is just rewarding the implementation of ads. I also disagree with the concept of profiting from free user content with ads like Reddit does. Which was Reddits primary goal of preventing third party apps. They wanted the ad revenue themselves instead of third parties getting the ad revenue.
The only way this can be acceptable is to not have a free ad version and only have a paid version. That way you are paying for software and not paying to remove ads or profiting from free user content.
This is what I clicked this thread to say. It doesn’t make any sense. There is no official “anonymous” organization so there can’t be an official Youtube channel.
I think that is a bit of a gamble. They might not want to hire you because it will be clear that you are looking to be promoted as soon as possible. Then they will have to go through the hiring process again to fill the position you just left.
If I were desperate for a job and needed this position I’d probably claim I was making around the top end of the positions salary range rather than much more. Then just deal with it until I can move up. In an ideal world I’d be applying for a job that is already at my current level with appropriate pay.
Are you overqualified for the position or are they just paying lower than market rate? Or perhaps were you previously making more than market rate? It’s always a good idea to try and get as high of a salary as you can, but jobs are going to be listed for a specific range for a reason. For example if it is a junior developer position they won’t want to hire a senior developer regardless of whatever reasons led to that person applying. The risk is high that this person won’t stick around in the junior position because they are too experienced.
Personally I’d rather it wasn’t a thing. Regardless of how insignificant and “just for fun” such things are we inevitably get into a situation where people are only doing things to be awarded. It corrupts the incentives of participating in discussion. The same problem would exist if we had karma on Lemmy.
I don’t recall exactly when it was, but quite awhile ago I saw Twitter transitioning from a place people use internet aliases to talk about niche things into a place where official organizations like local city governments, news channels and even the fire station to put out information. As well as people using real identities including celebrities. That’s when I bailed. It might have been around 2012? I don’t know for sure. The same problem happened on Facebook.
Using these websites as a place to do serious things feels absurd to me. Like trying to have a discussion about politics on a neopets forum. Except it is a neopets forum that is mostly porn. At least Facebook doesn’t have porn, but I don’t like the idea of real identities online. Real identities are for offline in my opinion. Official organizations should use dedicated sites for their purpose. Or a self hosted mastodon instance where they don’t allow sign ups if they really want this format of delivery.
It would be to be a completely mutual agreement where all parties understand all the details and implications. It will probably never happen so it makes way more sense to make data harvesting and selling of user data illegal.
The other day I watched someone try to dump their trash into a trash can and they just completely missed and got it all over the floor. They just left it there and walked away. I don’t think I could even force myself to do something like this. It seems inhuman. 😑
When a person finds any excuse to be angry to the point of intentionally misinterpreting things. It’s impossible to have a conversation with such people.
I don’t know about hyprocritical, but it is rather selfish. Valuing human lives at zero just because you haven’t met them is quite extreme if you think about it. I don’t see how it is utilitarian either. Saving even 2 people at the cost of 1 is the most utilitarian thing to do.
The situation would have to be rather intentional. Like I’m in a room next to a room with the other people and the fact that my death saves them is an absolute beyond questioning. Ideally I’d also be able to see them.
In that situation probably just 2.
I don’t think this can be extrapolated to any possible real world scenario.
I’m not trying to be rude here, but please read my post. Paying to remove ads is part of the ad business model. Anyone who pays to remove ads means the developer profited from ads.