Welcome to Incremental Social! Learn more about this project here!
Check out lemmyverse to find more communities to join from here!

Quicky

@Quicky@lemmy.world

This profile is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.

Quicky OP ,

Make that 10.

https://lemmy.world/pictrs/image/a60c41ee-3d5f-4216-8358-e041a29e55db.jpeg

UK Trial: Pornhub's Chatbot Halts Millions from Accessing Child Abuse Content (www.wired.com)

A trial program conducted by Pornhub in collaboration with UK-based child protection organizations aimed to deter users from searching for child abuse material (CSAM) on its website. Whenever CSAM-related terms were searched, a warning message and a chatbot appeared, directing users to support services. The trial reported a...

Quicky , (edited )

Which led to some amazing protests.

Weirdly, watching facesitting porn in the UK is perfectly fine, as long as it wasn’t filmed in the UK.

I can just imagine trying to defend that in court. “Your honour, it’s clear to me that the muffled moans of the face-sittee are those of a Frenchman”

Quicky ,

No they’re not, no they don’t.

Quicky ,

Perfect joke

Quicky OP ,

Yeah, but only for 1. There would still have been no saving buying 3 over 2.

Quicky OP ,

Yeah but it was never that. Only the original price was changed with a sticker. The 2x and 3x were always as they were.

Quicky OP ,

Does it though? The moment 2x is £16 , the cost of 1 shirt is £8. Therefore there’s no scaling at 3x. It doesn’t matter how much the starting price was or how much the later prices were, if the 2x price is £16 and the 3x price is £24. The cost of 1 shirt is only ever £8 if you buy more than one, meaning that any pricing variant over 2x is pointless.

Quicky OP , (edited )

Exactly. In which case the 3x price is redundant.

There is no curve.

Quicky OP ,

I’m not sure what you’re suggesting was solved. You’re positing scenarios whereas I’m presenting facts - the photo. Which, for the consumer, is mildly infuriating.

Quicky OP ,

Yes - we don’t know what the original price was for 1x. You’re assuming it was more than £8. It could have been £5 - we’ll never know.

Either way, it doesn’t change the current value proposition for the customer, which is that a bulk purchase is meaningless.

Quicky OP , (edited )

Yes I’m aware of this, I’m just saying that arbitrarily speculating on the potential original price for 1 item does nothing to change the current actual situation. If the cost was £10 for 1, I wouldn’t have bothered taking a photo.

Alternatively you could take the viewpoint that Next has already worked out that the price of 1 shirt is a minimum of £8, hence the costings for multiple units. Any price they put over £8 for 1 unit is additional profit, while the expected revenue per unit is £8+n where n is substantially close to zero. Latterly reducing the cost of 1 item does nothing except imply a perceived saving.

Additionally, the 2x and 3x offerings are not, and were never, discounted. The sticker reduces the price of 1 shirt, but if you were in the market for two, there’s no saving based on when you buy them. There might have been a saving originally, we assume, against the cost of buying 1 twice, but that’s irrelevant if you want two shirts at any point. Obviously the pricing would have been to incentivise the purchase of two when you would potentially only have bought one, so that is the driver for the sale, at which point the price per shirt is £8, and remains £8 per shirt for any multiple purchase, both before and after the sticker price amendment.

Quicky ,

This was always the case in the web version of Outlook, and the mobile client. If you subscribe to 365, ads are removed.

I noticed this last year when I moved away from 365 and started getting ads on the Outlook mobile client. I ended up binning it off and just used the default Mail app on iOS, which is a shame because the Outlook app on phones is actually superb. Not good enough to put up with ads though.

Quicky ,

This should have far more upvotes than the easy “TikTok sucks” comments above. Whether you like the platform or not, it directly generates revenue for the musicians.

Anecdotally, the amount of times my kids have heard a song on TikTok then gone on to Apple Music and added it to their playlist - then usually listening to other songs by the same artists - must be in the hundreds by now.

  • All
  • Subscribed
  • Moderated
  • Favorites
  • •
  • incremental_games
  • meta
  • All magazines
    •