The entitlement comes from the idea that these are basic features that should be available to them for free, in addition to everything else included in the free service. They are the sort of things casual users may not even be aware of. If they don’t think the extra stuff is worth the price, they can just not buy them. But thinking they are overvalued is not the same thing as thinking they should be free.

If you think the standard experience is adequate then why resort to piracy?

Because I use these a lot and want something better than the standard service when it’s an option. If you wanted to sell a car for $5000 and someone offered you $10,000, would you say no because $5000 was adequate?

Because you don’t think they are important, as if the important features to you are universal?

I guess “importance” is relative, so I’ll clarify; they do little to contribute to the main function of the apps. Youtube is a video platform, so it should allow you to watch hosted videos. Discord is a voice and text messaging app, so you should be able to send messages and join calls. They are robust enough that you can do many other things with them too, but these secondary offerings are sometimes more limited if you don’t pay. The people that do choose to pay supplement the cost of offering the basic services to those that don’t.

Maybe this is a hot take, but this post is very entitled. Custom server emojis and using a video platform for audio only while your phone is sleeping as basic features? You can be annoyed that these are the features they chose to be premium or you can be annoyed by how much premium costs, but you are hardly missing out on the standard experience without them. Frankly, there are better choices to complain about being premium, but compared to the past the amount of stuff we can get from the internet for free at great convenience is incredible.

Also, piracy is easy. If you use the platform a lot and don’t want to pay you can often get a premium or better experience with a bit of time invested for some setup. I use xManager for Spotify and ReVanced for Youtube. Both give me an ad-free experience for free and are more customizable than the legit application. ReVanced especially allows me to get rid of a lot of the UI I don’t use, change input actions, skip sponsor/intro/afk segments, and a lot more. There might be something for Tiktok too now but I haven’t looked.

Yeah Marvel characters’ identities don’t usually feel important. Nick Fury was race swapped for the movies and it was well-received.

In the US, brokerage companies legally have to send you a Form 1099 which covers all investment income over the year. You then include this when submitting your taxes. They probably send a similar report to your government instead.

Yes, there is the possibility that self-reported cases are untrustworthy. But there is no reason to think vegan cat owners would be more biased than non-vegan cat owners.

My desired outcome is simply showing that it is possible for cats to be healthy on a vegan diet. I only need one example to show that. And there are examples of such cats in the study my link had. At least for its tested disorders, reported vegan cats on average were slightly less likely to have at least one. The majority of both groups were in fact “healthy” (having no measured disorder). The difference between the healthy rates is small enough that it can be explained by variance and other factors contributing to health besides diet, and that’s fine.

Before anyone starts, yes there could be health metrics not being measured that are relevant to the spirit of the idea being explored. But you need to measure easily quantifiable things. If you just asked “Is this cat healthy?”, you would have some owners disqualify a cat for having a cut on their paw, and others disregarding serious concerns just because there hadn’t been a diagnosis. This is as wide a scope as you can expect to explore a qualitative idea with.

Unless you are suggesting that literally every owner reporting a healthy vegan cat in the study is just lying, my claim is supported by the study. And if you thought otherwise, you invented a different claim and assigned it to me.

I genuinely want people to engage honestly with other people’s arguments made in good faith. I know Lemmy is ultimately a collection of largely anonymous internet users, but still, I expected better than what I have seen in this thread.

See, this is actually good reasoning for why owners shouldn’t force a vegan diet on pets. It doesn’t mean it can’t be done well, but the difficulty in meeting dietary needs creates significant health risks for many owners’ cats. And it’s fine to leave it there, but it doesn’t close the door on the idea forever.

I noticed you forgot to include a very important contextual sentence for your myopathy quote:

Only three studies [27,29,30] have carried out hematological and/or biochemical analysis of blood in cats that were fed vegetarian diets, and it is worth noting that sample sizes were low. Cats on a high-protein vegetarian diet exhibited hypokalemia which accompanied recurrent polymyopathy [29]. There was also increased creatinine kinase activity, likely reflecting the muscle damage caused by the myopathy, and reduced urinary potassium concentrations. Potassium supplementation prevented development of this myopathy, strongly suggesting a link between the potassium and myopathy.

Meaning there was a health problem when one of the cats’ dietary needs wasn’t being met, which no longer appeared when the deficiency was corrected.

Even so, no one was trying to claim every conceivable vegan food mix is healthy for a cat. Of course trying to switch an animal who would be a carnivore in nature to a healthy synthetic vegan diet would be difficult. But there only needs to be one diet that succeeds to show it’s possible. And unless you’re going to claim literally all of the vegan cat guardians who reported healthy cats are lying about their cat’s health or diet, that requirement has been met.

What? That wasn’t my source, and it was a different comment chain created after my comment. How am I supposed to have read that?

Anyway, to be clear, the source commenter claimed it is impossible for a cat to be healthy with a vegan diet. All that’s needed to refute that is an example of a healthy cat with a vegan diet. So I found an article discussing how that has been observed. That’s it. But many people in this thread are either unwilling to concede this or are creating strawmen.

I know this isn’t serious, but most of the cats reported to have vegan diets were indoor only, so they wouldn’t be hunting wildlife regardless.

Look, block who you want, but I don’t get this adamant rejection of reality. You think a thing is impossible, someone shows you a study stating that the thing does happen, and you still insist the thing is impossible. You don’t even give a reason why. But you have the nerve to say others are being irrational?

To all the other free thinkers using the disagree button for dissent, reflect on if you are actually open to having your mind changed about things in the face of new information. Being occasionally exposed to sincere people that challenge your way of thinking is healthy. You may walk away with a more accurate view of something you previously dismissed, or even if you don’t have your mind changed, you are enriched with the confidence that your views can withstand a degree of criticism. And you don’t have to reply if you don’t want to argue or whatever, but at least be honest with yourself so you can grow.

I took that last line to be sarcastic.

Cats have dietary needs that would require them to eat meat in nature. But we can make vegan, synthetic food that meets these needs. In fact, studies have shown that cats on vegan diets tend to be healthier if anything.

I don’t understand why people upvote summaries that don’t even try to be objective. I honestly think the mods there do notably abuse their power to remove comments, but let people decide that for themselves. This commenter is telling you who to support while being confidently incorrect on the original issue.

Cats are obligate carnivores in the wild. This just means they have dietary needs that would normally require meat. But we can make vegan, synthetic food that meets these needs. In fact, studies have shown that cats on vegan diets tend to be healthier if anything.

You can get more reasonable prices per sandwich with coupon codes. For the ones near me, they almost always have a “FLBOGO” or “BOGOFTL” or “FTL1299” or similar variation to get two for the price of one. But YMMV and you have to be ok with leftovers if you’re eating alone.

Exactly. People aren’t taking issue with the idea that their country’s product compares poorly to another country’s product, it’s that some random person’s random encounters are enough to make that judgement. Sweeping generalizations very often do more harm than good.

This worked for me, thanks! You don’t need to be rooted, but you do need to change some developer options to get Shizuka working. Then disable the “Audio focus” permission in App Ops on one or both apps.

If you mean they are donating from their own profits, yes they can write that off. But these customer donations are not income for them and cannot be written off by the company.

https://apnews.com/article/fact-checking-000329849244

But people should research charities before giving, some are many times more effective than others.

https://www.givingwhatwecan.org/en/best-charities-to-donate-to-2024

They do not. It is not income, so they can’t claim it as a deduction. The customer could claim it as a deduction if they wanted, but these donations are small enough I’m sure they really aren’t worth tracking for an individual.

https://apnews.com/article/fact-checking-000329849244

Me too!