Which is good right? Fosters both competition and market resilience.
Which is good right? Fosters both competition and market resilience.
With the expected costs of a web browser by the general public being $0, what company would want it that isn’t going to do that? Even Firefox survives off ad revenue. There is no “browser market”, there’s an ad market.
You’re confusing losing land because you can’t hold it militarily with negotiating an end to the invasion by ceding land. He’s said that no one will negotiate for Ukraine but Ukraine and since the incoming US administration has already said they’ll be ending support we really don’t have any leverage to encourage them to accept any terms. We can’t threaten to remove support that we’ve already said we’re removing.
There’s no threat needed. Zalenskyy already knows he’s losing US support after January.
This is literally Zalenskyy saying we can’t negotiate for him while knowing that he’s losing US support in January.
They could negotiate Russia’s end to the war using their own resources (ie. Mostly the embargos) but anything Ukraine forfeits would have to be negotiated by them. The US can’t just cede another nation’s land.
Yes let’s take the most wildly liked billionaire and make them our example. Surely that will convince people to join us.
On the other side of the spectrum packet loss is a key feature of some of the layers below tcp, like path-mtu discovery.
Doesn’t that “feeling” though kinda confirm that it’s an illusion of screen space when you can measure the diagonal image on a normal phone and see that it’s the same?
Or it was just your area reverting back to the prevailing trend. Microeconomics vs macro.
Your house matches their estimates and you’re questioning their numbers?
Last time I looked, the aspect ratios for the unfolded screens were such that you didn’t actually get any more screen real estate than a normal smartphone so the kids analogy doesn’t make a ton of sense to me. For media it’s like you get the illusion of a bigger screen.
Patreon and sites like it exist as a hedge against YouTube banning your channel.
Why would they ever make that known to the public. Would be a huge invasion of the competitors privacy. Kinda weird.
It was pot for Phelps
What’s the alternative though?
I don’t even think that’s right. It was a service you got for free for buying a pixel before they moved it to Google one.
It’s the cornerstone of their methloften line.
Not “start from anywhere” like this service is.
Their interests are his interests, not ours.