Subscriptions are not a contract of payment. Your bank pre-authorizes these payments, simply ask them to remove pre-authorization. If they can't do that, then the bank is spending your money without your consent.
You haven't signed any agreement or opened any lines of credit - I would be amazed if there was any jurisdiction in the entire world where this would affect your credit.
Heuristically, that sounds naive. Actuaries do not typically think "oh, that's enough data". If Experian could track whether you iron your shirts, it too would show up in your credit score.
I mean possibly. I interact in the space and there is almost no information in a cancelled subscription. There is more information in how much you spent on takeaway.
Definitely not bullshit. I have a friend who was banned simply for returning a Pixel phone after accidentally ordering 2. Some automated mechanism flagged it as potential fraud and nothing worked to reverse the ban. Going to the bank to block payments, remove authorization, or God forbid, do a chargeback for the money they already took after banning you is playing Russian roulette with your Google account.
It's also the only way to stop Google from stealing your money short of going to a lawyer.
The Youtube account is banned. Google can escalate things and widen the net to ban anything and everything you have in the Google ecosystem, like a Gmail account. You can see here [0] that OP still has access to the Gmail account.
I've always been a bit embarrassed by the extent of my self-conciousness, but recently I'm starting to think of it as more of a virtue than a hindrance.
Virtue is something the virtueless prey upon. However, the takeaway is not to abandon virtue, it's to censure the virtueless. There are far more of us than there are of them.
The most dangerous people throughout history take morality very seriously. They have so much commitment to their moral system that they're willing to kill millions of people to enforce it.
People like Andreessen are not without morality. Their moral system is right-libertarianism.
The people I am least afraid of are those who are without a deep fixation on morality.
The person you're replying to was talking about "virtue", which I'd argue is an entirely different thing than "morality". Virtues are traits that can help people be better humans, while morals are rules separating right and wrong. Things like courage, patience, introspection, kindness, etc, are all virtues, while morals tend to be much more of the Ten Commandments variety.
I don't think anyone has ever killed people or gone to war for a virtue, but they certainly have to enforce their moral code on others. Probably the worst combination is people with strong moral beliefs but few virtues, since their lack of virtue both fails to temper their moral fury and poorly guides the moral determinations they get so fired up about.
> Virtues are traits that can help people be better humans, while morals are rules separating right and wrong.
Insofar as there is a difference at all, (what people see as) virtues are generalizations of (what they hold to be) moral rules or, viewed another way, moral rules are the operationalizations that give concrete meaning to the platitudes of virtues. They are inseparable, even if notionally distinct categories.
I think there's a Goldilocks zone of moral flexibility and openness somewhere in between complete moral rigidness and total amorality, I think.
The zone of moral rigidness contains all those species of fundamentalism that have caused so much conflict and atrocity. It's one one of the very bad zones.
But another very bad zone is the total amorality of psychopaths and narcissists (and they often pretend to be in the other zones), and they are also responsible for so much destruction an atrocity.
You can be obsessed with a diet and never lose weight. We are talking about two different things. Being productive and making change has very little to do with making something your entire personality.
Try being in a relationship with someone who may become a target of the administration due to their status as a resident (but not citizen) of the USA and tell me the outcomes don't change.
You're right. I need to calm down. It's all theater that doesn't impact real people. We can just go about our merry way because no one has been kidnapped by federal agents in defiance of judicial orders.
There was a massive protest in the US this past weekend. Millions of people standing in solidarity. This was the 3rd such protest, each larger than the last.
What has changed?
One of these days the US will realize that emoting together with costumes and posterboards, bitching online, and loudly talking about how "my team is right!" is not effective.
So, in what ways is it effective to give a fuck about national politics? I haven't found any, and I'm emotionally tapped out. The government gets none of my attention.
Local government participation might yield small results, maybe. Not enough for me to give a shit. Seems like twice a week a state-or-lower politician gets rung up for bribes, corruption, etc. I have no desire to play that game, personally.
The people of Montgomery in the 60's boycotted a bus for a few weeks. What changed? They just got hosed down in the end.
If you're hoping for instantaneous change over a single event, you're not going to see that over a mass protest. The point of protests is to bring awareness and change sentiment.
>So, in what ways is it effective to give a fuck about national politics?
Kristi Noem didn't get fired because people "didn't give a flying fuck about politics". We aren't seeing dozens of republican representatives retire or not run for reelection because "people didn't give a shit about politics". The Epstien files, the push back against ICE, the pressure against the SAVE Act. I can go on all day.
If you feel powerless then feel free to stand by. But let's not pretend that absolutely nothing has changed just because you don't bother to read up on the news you admitted you "don't give a shit about"
Looking over the course of these past 15 months, it's clearly having some effect. I'm sorry if it's not fast enough for you, but not all problems are solved by bullets. Feel free to prove me wrong if you want.
If you do this, you are in effect ceding the stage to assholes. They will go and spew the post-truth hate soup to your aquantances and friends and family and come election day, they win.
I think protests are just a tool with varying success depending on context but political action is necessary if you don't want t o lose your country.
It's fair to expect people to pay attention to political issues that can affect them.
It's not fair to expect everyone to be intimately aware of every political gaffe, and instantly make the connection when you repeat it so they know not to reply to the comment seriously -- as the original comment was doing.
FFS, just put it in quotes so people know you're quoting someone. (Or if it's not a direct quote, mention that it's from the mentality of the person you're mocking.) Is that so hard? Is it so important that you feel special as someone who knows about that incident that you just have to provoke a confused flamewar?
The head of the DoJ, being questioned about the president of the United States' involvement in (one of) the highest profile child sex trafficking ring in US history and it's subsequent cover up using the FBI itself, yelling about the economy and that nobody cares about child sex trafficking... Is not exactly a normal "political gaffe".
I would, in fact, say it's a huge deal that anyone remotely aware of what's happening in politics should know about. It was headlined and broadcast on most major networks.
Nor do I see anybody upset that it was misinterpreted or that someone didn't know. Just people who didn't know about it name-calling anyone who did. So not sure how their little joke "provoked" a flamewar, vs people being sensitive and lashing out that they aren't in on the joke immediately.
I'd bet this is something the next Gen will be taught in high school history. I guess it's easy to pretend Watergate is just another Tuesday in midst the scandal.
Layers of abstraction. Most noticeably with inheritance and general OOP concepts. I've tried to force it, assuming it prefers a more functional or simple class style; but it genuinely struggles to generate (but not understand) what I might call a typical system in an OOP paradigm with well defined abstractions.
More SAIL emphemera: a short film of the regular SAIL volleyball game, starring John McCarthy, Les Earnest and special guest, Xerox PARC's Bob Taylor https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JaoBt_yBXg0 .
I would probably drop coffee it was proven to have negative effects on memory.
reply