Rodeo

joined 1 year ago
[–] Rodeo@lemmy.ca 0 points 8 months ago (3 children)

Does watching TV really count as quality time together?

[–] Rodeo@lemmy.ca 1 points 8 months ago (1 children)

They can actually afford something! Lucky.

I checked again last week: a trailer built in 1974, on 1/4 acre, a two hour drive from my job is $191k.

That's $84k out of my budget. For a broke down trailer in a neighborhood that might as well be a junkyard.

Fuck the world.

[–] Rodeo@lemmy.ca 3 points 8 months ago

Weird Al's music is mostly just other people's music, with his own lyrics.

[–] Rodeo@lemmy.ca 2 points 8 months ago

No problem. It's just a Chinese brand from Amazon. They were the cheapest polarized sunglasses I could find at the time

[–] Rodeo@lemmy.ca 1 points 8 months ago

I guess they meant for military use? That's definitely a weird one lol

[–] Rodeo@lemmy.ca 2 points 8 months ago (2 children)
[–] Rodeo@lemmy.ca 1 points 8 months ago

Damn people took this way too seriously lmao

[–] Rodeo@lemmy.ca 5 points 8 months ago

I was surprised to learn just now that Pit Viper isn't actually owned by Luxottica.

However they have many models that made in China and Italy, which means they are manufactured by Luxottica. Apparently some of them are still made in the US, but I wasn't able to find which ones.

Normally when a company is manufacturing something domestically they proudly announce it, because it's a good selling point. But I didn't see pit viper doing that in my brief searches, so it's safe to assume they're all made by Luxottica.

Which means these knockoffs probably came out of the same factory, if not the exact same product line.

[–] Rodeo@lemmy.ca -2 points 8 months ago (1 children)

So what are they doing that illegal that other apps aren't doing??

I really don't know how to be any more clear with this question.

[–] Rodeo@lemmy.ca 4 points 8 months ago

Especially diamond bags!

[–] Rodeo@lemmy.ca 0 points 8 months ago (3 children)

I read the article too, and those things you quoted sound to me like things every app does.

Hence my question: what is different here?

[–] Rodeo@lemmy.ca -1 points 8 months ago (5 children)

There's not a word in this article about why this breach of privacy matters while others do not. It's not stated whether this was in the terms of service for the app, and whether those terms were ruled against.

All kinds of apps have been selling personal information for a long time, and it's been ruled before that it's allowed if they have the proper legalese in the terms of service. Did this app just not have any terms of service?

Why is it a breach of privacy for this app, but other apps doing the same selling of personal data is not?

view more: ‹ prev next ›