[-] Bea@lemmy.ca 13 points 1 week ago

Unpopular take but I'd infinitely rather no recline seats. Recline doesn't make you more comfortable - it's just an illusion of control. It screws the person behind you, but you have no choice if the passenger in front of you reclines. My most comfortable flights have been in the aisle/window seat of low-cost carriers (European carriers, Cebu Pacific, Flair/Lynx).

[-] Bea@lemmy.ca 1 points 1 week ago

Frequent flyers get the reclining seats for free though. They're just trying to fit more seats on planes while hiding the fact that WestJet Rewards is becoming increasingly enshittified.

7
submitted 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) by Bea@lemmy.ca to c/degoogle@discuss.tchncs.de

cross-posted from: https://lemmy.ca/post/51878818

If we want to argue that Degoogling isn't just about privacy, but about protecting your digital life from being shut down at the whim of a tech giant with no real appeal process, what are some examples showing why we shouldn’t ignore the risk of Google banning users, locking them out of countless accounts, and deleting photos, emails, and records that often lack backups?

Some examples that I personally know of:

  • Being mass reported in YouTube comments for expressing a controversial opinion
  • Filing a copyright claim, only for a creator to appeal it, and failing to provide ownership proof within 48 hours
  • Having your Google account hacked and used for fake ads or Play purchases, then being told the charges are “legitimate,” and facing a ban if you dispute them
  • Having your $1000 Google store purchase lost in transit, then being told that you're not getting a refund and if you try to chargeback, you'll be banned.
40
submitted 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) by Bea@lemmy.ca to c/degoogle@lemmy.ml

cross-posted from: https://lemmy.ca/post/51878816

If we want to argue that Degoogling isn't just about privacy, but about protecting your digital life from being shut down at the whim of a tech giant with no real appeal process, what are some examples showing why we shouldn’t ignore the risk of Google banning users, locking them out of countless accounts, and deleting photos, emails, and records that often lack backups?

Some examples that I personally know of:

  • Being mass reported in YouTube comments for expressing a controversial opinion
  • Filing a copyright claim, only for a creator to appeal it, and failing to provide ownership proof within 48 hours
  • Having your Google account hacked and used for fake ads or Play purchases, then being told the charges are “legitimate,” and facing a ban if you dispute them
  • Having your $1000 Google store purchase lost in transit, then being told that you're not getting a refund and if you try to chargeback, you'll be banned.
  • Failing to provide a picture of a credit card for a Google store order flagged for fraud within 72 hours.
20
submitted 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) by Bea@lemmy.ca to c/deGoogle@lemmy.ca

If we want to argue that Degoogling isn't just about privacy, but about protecting your digital life from being shut down at the whim of a tech giant with no real appeal process, what are some examples showing why we shouldn’t ignore the risk of Google banning users, locking them out of countless accounts, and deleting photos, emails, and records that often lack backups?

Some examples that I personally know of:

  • Being mass reported in YouTube comments for expressing a controversial opinion
  • Filing a copyright claim, only for a creator to appeal it, and failing to provide ownership proof within 48 hours
  • Having your Google account hacked and used for fake ads or Play purchases, then being told the charges are “legitimate,” and facing a ban if you dispute them
  • Having your $1000 Google store purchase lost in transit, then being told that you're not getting a refund and if you try to chargeback, you'll be banned.
  • Failing to provide a picture of a credit card for a Google store order flagged for fraud within 72 hours.
[-] Bea@lemmy.ca 2 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

No, because thieves who aren’t total idiots will move on when they see a camera.

If that were true, we wouldn't be seeing a constant stream of camera footage of porch pirates on news channels, media outlets and social media. The reality is that opportunistic thieves don't care anymore. Policing doesn't focus on protecting average citizens from property crimes, it's a complete afterthought.

[-] Bea@lemmy.ca 5 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

That's too logical. Instead, Carney should cut public services, and we should give another $18 billion to build a new factory producing shitty cars no one in their right mind would buy, so that his lobbyist friends can make political donations under all their family members names and call me the only adult in the room. I'll give it 7 months.

[-] Bea@lemmy.ca 2 points 1 month ago

He was on trial.

[-] Bea@lemmy.ca 7 points 1 month ago

For people not following, he was saying that if he was the corrupter of youths and weak-minded men, then everyone else must be improvers. Because not everyone else are improvers (logically speaking in this argument), it means many people were responsible for the corruption and he alone is not responsible.

5
submitted 1 month ago by Bea@lemmy.ca to c/economics@lemmy.world

cross-posted from: https://lemmy.ca/post/50659384

Some media outlets are also reporting this as a 1.6% annualized decrease in real GDP (which is the quarterly rate multiplied by 4).

38
submitted 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) by Bea@lemmy.ca to c/canada@lemmy.ca

Some media outlets are also reporting this as a 1.6% annualized decrease in real GDP (which is the quarterly rate multiplied by 4). While that's technically true, it may seem rather sensationalist since this is the first quarter we've contracted in recent history (since mid 2023) and assumes GDP will continue decreasing by this rate for the next 3 quarters.

Bea

joined 2 months ago