I'm pretty sure devs can just withold payment after Jan 1, and for games already released if Unity wants the money they would be forced to sue the dev for not adhering to their illegal and unenforceable contract. They would have to prove the validity of their per-unit charges without having actually ever measured the units.

Watch history is an absolutely essential metric for Youtube - I can understand how you've been led to believe that turning this option off is opting out from that data collection, but no. What this setting is asking is if you want the data collected to be represented to you as recommendations for other videos to watch. It absolutely doesn't change what data is collected, just whether the videos you've watched should be accounted for when the algorithm is finding new videos to recommend.

Quality won't increase relative to official methods because it's already more or less at parity with them. If the file you watch is tagged as a WEB-DL, in most cases it's identical to the file you'd be streaming via official methods in terms of quality. It's just remuxed into an open container format like .mkv (the video and audio streams are losslessly copied into a file format which can be shared)

They also screwed themselves over by playing the r/place trump card so soon after the last iteration in 2022. Rather than doing it to create a cool event to experience once every few years, they did it to drive engagement on Reddit. That's made people lose interest and even if it's another 5 years before the next one, many of them won't come back. It's a self-acknowledgement that the peak reddit era is finished and wouldn't have happened without the prior backlash against their enshittification. It's the type of thing that sets up the conditions for a death spiral, because they've resorted to tricks to get people to use the site and eventually they'll run out of tricks.

I get it, so I installed the extension and browsed with it today. My feedback is that I feel like blocking individual words like Elon or Bezos would be required to make this meaningful at all. I still saw a bunch of stuff about them that the filter didn't catch because they are so ubiquitous that you don't need to say their full name to communicate who you're talking about.

At the same time, while I almost always don't care and don't want to hear about a piece of Elon news, it doesn't mean I'm not interested in Twitter developments, but I think the filter will block most if not all links/info about Twitter since it's intrinsically linked to Elon's persona.

At the end of the day I think it's a cool idea, but I don't think you can effectively block these guys via this method without blocking any mention of any platform they're associated with, which isn't really what I want.

I can't scrobble my music to last.fm on iOS without some janky workaround. The "almost same level of control" part of what you said relies on an assumption that only the set of use cases explicitly determined by Apple as ones that "matter" are worth supporting. That it's more important to prevent the user from explicitly allowing a scrobbling app permission to read the music player app's now playing notification than for the device to be able to perform this simple function.

This point of difference doesnt have any meaningful impact on collection of my data. It just stops the device from being able to do the function I want. So that what, I can sleep easier knowing that Apple designed a slick interface to point out data vectors which were already implied to be collected? It used to feel like a smartphone with training wheels, now they've just locked up the handlebars so that it's easier to go straight.

My mother also got the smallpox vaccine and had a permanent scar from it. I pointed it out as a small child and she told me about it, I asked my dad and he had one too. I thought it was cool, like a rite of passage where one day I'd be old enough to get my own permanent vaccine scar. But then they had to go and eradicate smallpox, saving countless lives. Bummer, dude.

I didn't, but I just found a few papers showing a relationship between awareness/use of nutrition claims/labels and obesity.

https://bmcpublichealth.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12889-019-7622-3

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0306919214001328?via%3Dihub

That second one sums up my logic pretty well:

The analysis revealed that people with excess weight display a high level of interest in nutrition claims, namely, short and immediately recognised messages. Conversely, obese individuals assign less importance to marketing attributes (price, brand, and flavour) compared with normal weight consumers.

Generally people that engage with products marketed as "diet" options are more likely to be people that want to improve their diet. In turn those people are more likely to be overweight. And people that are not overweight are more likely to select based on other product attributes.

Edit: The use of low-calorie sweeteners is associated with self-reported prior intent to lose weight in a representative sample of US adults - https://www.nature.com/articles/nutd20169

In cross-sectional analyses, the expected relation between higher BMI and LCS [low calorie sweetener] use was observed, after adjusting for smoking and sociodemographic variables. The relation was significant for the entire population and separately for men and women (see Table 1). The relation between obesity (BMI ⩾30 kg m−2) and LCS consumption was significant for LCS beverages, tabletop LCS and LCS foods (see Figure 1a). Individuals consuming two or more types of LCSs were more likely to be obese than individuals consuming none (42.7% vs 28.4%) and were more likely to have class III obesity (7.3% vs 4.2%).

My assumption isn't completely absent of context. From the article: "The FDA reviewed the the same evidence as IARC in 2021 and identified significant flaws in the studies, the spokesperson said."

But that's not really what I meant. The issue I have is about language and presentation of info, not research methodology. Most people aren't going to read WHO's ~100 pages of recommendations on aspartame. We get CNBC's interpretation, and some clickbaity editor has left their stink on it.

"WHO says soda sweetener aspartame safe, but may cause cancer in extreme doses" is both a more pertinent headline for countries in the west and from what I can tell, closer to being in alignment with what the WHO are actually saying.

Of the basis WHO is using here, most if not all longterm studies (the kind you'd want for assessing things like cancer risk) are based on observational evidence. That is, a study where the participants typically aren't asked to do anything they don't already normally do. For this topic, that means generally speaking the participants are going to be people that already normally drink low calorie sweetened beverages.

It doesn't really seem like they're accounting for the fact that this means that the participant candidates are going to skew towards people that are overweight, which is like the 2nd highest risk factor for cancer generally.

I can't really make sense of their recommendation. The data required to recommend for or against just isn't there. The totality of short term data is all very showing a very strong association between sweetened drinks and weight loss. Wish they'd just explain this stuff properly so we didn't have to rely on the dumbass media to interpret advice meant for medical professionals

If it's the same issue as me, you just need to logout/login inside the app. JWT secrets had to be rotated following a recent exploit, and the apps I'm using haven't accounted for this case. Liftoff still thought I was logged in for example, but as far as the instance was concerned I wasn't. No issues after I logged out/in manually.

I don't think there's much keeping users outside that demographic away, more so that the fediverse is a tech solution to the reddit problem, so naturally the people that flock to lemmy are the type of person that looks for tech solutions to the problems they experience in daily life.

My mother just had her illegal IPTV streaming box stop working recently, was her solution to find an alternative? No, she simply stopped watching her shows and did other things instead, and complained about it. And that's with full denial of service, not just limited/compromised service like reddit users currently experience.

It wasn't until her tech-savvy nerd son set up another IPTV box for her that she was able to resume consuming the content she wanted to, and similarly lemmy won't really take off until it reaches a critical mass where enough tech-savvy nerds have shown regular people Lemmy as the tech solution to the problem they're facing. What's holding up progress with that at the moment is that the reddit problem for most people isn't significant enough for a regular person to be in a position to do anything about it, even if they are directly inconvenienced.