I ran it, and it was a (poorly) rebadged version of server 2003.

At least one app I used, refused to install on it because they “didn’t support server operating systems” … Yeah. That actually happened. It picked it up as the server 2003 version that XP 64bit edition was based on.

I just about jumped right off a bridge.

fracking clankers.

I mean, you could take the same logic and apply it to many things AI generated…

The list is much much longer than this.

This sounds a lot like “trickle down economics”

And we all know that’s worked great in the past.

This comment made me chuckle.

Thanks. I need that.

… And?

We can always give a little more. Plus what do you think the other 70% is doing?

Neither statement is incorrect. Not sure why anyone is bothered enough about this to down vote it.

Yes. You can provide no value at all and the answer is still yes.

The answer continues to be yes if the value you provide is in the negatives.

Shareholders deserve nothing.

Okay, sure, but how does any of this get billionaires to their next yacht?

It doesn’t?

So yeah, that’s not going to happen.

Why do you think that?

Because corporate greed > all?

The reason is simple. Inflation.

The NES originally sold for $180 USD in 1985, which is worth $530 today. The SNES, circa 1991, was $199 USD or $459 today.

Fast forward a bunch…

The switch 2 is currently priced at $449 USD.

The literal price has gone up, but the cost is going down. Slightly, but still.

I’m sure I could repeat the same experiment for PlayStation, Xbox, or Sega’s consoles and see similar results.

It would need to be, otherwise it’s not ubi.

Aah. Seems like Batgirl can survive without labeling every little thing.

The people at pavlok probably would want a word with the people who made the shock bands…

So… UBI.

Literally baked into http is a “referrer URL” option.

None of this is new. It’s literally built into the protocols we use daily.

Yeah… As a technology person (working IT for many years now), it’s more likely that there’s some bad interaction between the browser, Adblock and the service that does the reviews. They’ve found a way to get an image to load regardless if the review applet works.

My bet would be that the Adblock is preventing the site from loading the necessary code to show the review submission “page”. This image is up behind the review regardless of if it works, is just that if the review thing works, it covers this up.

Sounds to me that this is a courtesy message basically saying that Adblock thinks the review thing is an ad.