To be fair, they didn’t actually say that what the others called it was smart or correct, just that they did call it that. But given nuance can be deduced from people’s words, I think we can both assume that the person you’re engaging with isn’t playing with a full deck of cards…

“I don’t get my info from Google”. Then use your search engine of choice, “google” is basically genericized by now. The info is all there for you to read and not rely on your memory which is clearly wrong. And that’s understandable. It’s been 10yrs.

And you’re not entirely right on the YouTube not stealing users from tiktok. YouTube shorts have more active users than tiktok does by a good margin. And tiktoks growth is slowing as a result. Again, these are all facts.

And finally, you’re a fucking idiot. Why the fuck did Instagrams user count explode when they implemented short form video if that wasn’t an attractive feature? Why is my Instagram feed 85%+ videos over pictures? I don’t even follow celebrities on there, a handful of bands (be less than 10), the rest is friends but mainly content creators creating comedy. Be it memes, original creations, stand up clips, etc. Your memory is shit and fallible, the pages I literally just read are not as they are saved for posterity. I suggest you take my original suggestion and do some research on the topic instead of relying on your feelings before you make yourself look like a bigger idiot. Cos yeah, Instagram didn’t take 100% of vines users, but it still took a fucking huge amount of them. The data is all out there, written way better than I can write it. Go read it and stop trying to act like you know all, cos after you read a bit, maybe you might change your tune…

Sure, you might not have, but the data suggests that Instagram allowing its users to post 15s videos and monetise them was what allowed them to poach a lot of vine users. This isn’t me just talking shit, google “why did vine shut down” and I guarantee 95%+ of the results will say the same thing. Twitter got scooped in a big way. I mean, vine had more users than Instagram before it’s downfall.

Data caps may have played a part, but it would’ve been insignificant. They were 6s videos after all, and the average American was already using over 1GB of data even back then. Instagram had about the same amount of users at the time. And their willingness to give their users more flexibility than vine was by giving users 15s videos and the ability to monetise was all it took. It wasn’t helped by twitter giving zero shits about vine. Which kinda makes sense, they had their own video thing going.

Vine didn’t fail cos it wasn’t popular, it failed cos Instagram saw what it was doing, copied it, and did it better.

For me here in Australia, my yearly check up (although I only go every two years) is paid for by the govt. Back when I was at uni and super poor, I still went to my childhood optometrist cos I still lived at home, she lived within walking distance, and why not? And over the four years, she’d do my exam for free, then give me all the info I needed to be able to go to the super cheap optometrist to get them made there. This was back in 2003, way before we had all these budget options we have now. So, being able to get a pair for $180 as opposed to the $500 my childhood one wanted for hers was worth it. To be fair though, her range was pretty damn stylish compared to the other.

And I dunno if you’re saying that in case you think you might be offending me, but even if you weren’t, a phrase like that would indicate you’re an ally anyway! Also, who can get offended by being called brother? Although, I am male, maybe that’s giving me some bias… Anyway, my weirdness aside (it’s friday night, I’ve had a couple of beers hahahaha), yeah, shit. It’s fucked. I actually get a double length session when I go now (still for free!). Twas my first time seeing this optician and she asked me “do you have ADHD? Or maybe youre otherwise neurodivergant?” And I was all “yessasssss…?” So now we take longer and do more stuff. I’ve never really fucked up, but there’s been some glasses I’ve had where I’m like “yeah, this is like 85% instead of the 100% the last pair were…”

Nah, no need to apologise for that, I was just trying to relate to you on that issue. It doesn’t bother me either, I could not give a fuck how I look 95% of the time (special occasions like weddings etc are different. And I bet my mum wishes I gave more than half a shit about my appearance in public hahahaha). But I do like to have choices (even if my ADHD does mean it takes me FOREVER to actually make a decision), so it does annoy me somewhat.

As for the online supplier, if you’re North American, theres an online store called glasses are awesome (that’s not actually it’s name, but if you say the wrong thing is the right thing on the internet, someone will invariably correct you. It’s like Zillow or zenni or something? Starts with a z, that much I do know. Used to get mentioned on Reddit a lot), but they were super cheap when my mate ordered their spider jereusalem knock off glasses for a costume party. His prescription is a bit more normal than mine so he might have saved some money there, but even with shipping from the states to Australia, it was still absurdly cheap (I think it was less than $AUD40).

Edit: Googled it like a sane person, its www.zennioptical.com and I just clicked on the first pair I saw. All up, they wanna charge me $USD26 before delivery for the most basic options (most basic lenses, no coatings etc. the coatings costs were kinda reasonable though, started at $USD4 and went up to like $USD35), and that includes a $USD9 additional charge cos my prescription is so insane. Seems pretty good to me. Way cheaper than what you suggested yours cost (you didn’t give an exact price, but I’m not an idiot so I can figure out the ballpark of “10x more than $60” hahahaha).

Er, the lenses are still stupid cheap. I literally paid $50 all told for both frames and lenses. And I just searched for online budget retailers here in Australia, went with the first result, and their single vision lenses (even with my current prescription which is a bit fucked cos my eyes are vastly different and one of them is so bad the lens may as well be the bottom of a coke bottle) start at $AUD9.95. Bifocal is a bit more expensive, but still quite reasonable with prices starting at $AUD42. Sure, they have fancy Kodak lenses for $AUD280, and getting coatings and UV coating costs more (I still say that $AUD80 for the ultra premium ones with added blue light filtering and all those bells and whistles is “cheap” compared to what I used to pay), but there is no reason you can’t get a pair for under $AUD50 that’ll do you just fine.

Someone’s lucky enough to only need single strength lenses and/or have choices of lens suppliers.

Nope. Both eyes are vastly different, and I’ve never shopped around for lenses, just buy what the optometrist recommends me. I am in Australia, so things may be different due to that. And I feel you on the limited frame selection thing, one of my lenses may as well be the bottom of a coke bottle, I too don’t get much choice when I select a new pair.

Nah, glasses don’t have to be expensive. I notice literally no difference between pairs I’ve had that were over $400 and pairs that were $50. It’s just shaped glass… And whilst I mostly agree with you on headphones, there are a very small number of manufacturers out there who are doing some fantastic budget headphones. The earbuds I use now cost me $40 and shit all over any others I’ve had (and have lab verified frequency response curves to prove they are legit too). Should add, that even though they are budget, some of their products can easily cost over $1k, but then they are emulating headphones that cost over $5k…

Smartest thing you’ve said all thread.

Says the person who literally doesn’t know what advertising is…

Lol, you’ve spent 20yrs in this industry and don’t know what advertising is? Do you work as a receptionist for your company? And if you are an advertiser, you’re terrible at it if you think that was them proposing they use the ADA to enforce any sort of judgement. All they said that is that it would cost more to defend than to follow the ADA. They were referring to them rather than invoking them like you have done. You are terrible at parsing nuance from a comment - I apologise for trying to speak to you as someone with an equal intelligence to mine, my mistake…

Advertising isn’t covered by the ADA. That’s the beginning and end of it. Yes, they should. No, they don’t have to. Just like liquor stores don’t have to hide their advertising. You’ve also assumed way too much about how broad the website accessibility statues are. They are very narrow, and the case you’ve presented is not covered by them. Websites aren’t required to censor their content for fear it may trigger a response in a disabled person. They are only required to ensure that the website is accessible to the disabled person. If what you proposed were the case, then no alcohol manufacturer or store would be able to have a website.

The person you are replying to said nothing about the ADA. That was OP. I dunno why you’re bothering to argue with this person, you’re clearly out of your depth since it’s painfully obvious you don’t even know what advertising is.

You’re still wrong. The law mandates how websites should operate too so everyone can access them (which isn’t unique to the US either), and the article you linked even says that the case was covered by the ADA and no special interpretation was necessary (you may be confused by Domino’s horseshit response). The act does not mandate how advertising should and shouldn’t be conducted. The ADA covers quite a bit of ground. Might be worth looking it up before you spout off next time…

Bernard is Irish…