▲ 92 ▼ €2.99 or €3.49? Proton VPN's Pricing Test Exposed (thecybersecguru.com) submitted 3 months ago by UnLocoPoco@lemmy.world to c/technology@lemmy.world removed 40 comments fedilink hide all child comments
[–] abacabadabacaba@infosec.pub 28 points 3 months ago (8 children) This article could have been several times shorter. permalink fedilink source hideshow 8 child comments replies: [–] Wildone@sh.itjust.works 10 points 3 months ago (1 child) Probably AI generated permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] Hellgruen@lemmy.zip 5 points 3 months ago With the amount of ads it feels more like it’s purposefully made longer to increase ad revenue permalink fedilink source parent [–] cenzorrll@piefed.ca 4 points 3 months ago Seriously, it's like a middle school writing assignment to reach 5 pages, but worse. permalink fedilink source parent [–] SnoringEarthworm@sh.itjust.works -2 points 3 months ago Put a Tl;dr at the top for me, and you can be as autistically thorough as you want to be. permalink fedilink source parent [+] daychilde@lemmy.world -10 points 3 months ago (3 children) I agree except you can't have something be "several times shorter". Yes, I know what you mean, but "several times" can only be longer. It's like saying "500% less". You can't do that. The best case scenario is that means "20% of the original" but arguably "500% less" would mean you take five times the original amount and subtract it from the original, leaving you with negative 4 times the amount, not twenty percent. Anyway. This is just a light-hearted pedantic pseudo-rant, although I also do stand by the truth of what I'm saying. But I'm not intending corrections, just being silly about a pet peeve of mine. heh hmm... that article might be better off being -4 times its original length, come to that. heh permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] sem@lemmy.blahaj.zone 7 points 3 months ago (2 children) I disagree. Twice as short would be half the length if you asked me (same as twice as long, in a glass half empty, half full situation). In a similar but different example, if you have a 1000 word essay and you cut it to 500 words, you could make it twice as short again by cutting it to 250 words. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] daychilde@lemmy.world -1 points 3 months ago (1 child) Language is generally workable if it communicates the intended message. In that sense, I acknowledge that it is generally understood what something means, but not always. However, it is semantic gibberish, and fuck anyone who supports that gibberish. But yes, it's fine enough in the same way that when someone says "could of" we know they meant "could've" or "could have". It doesn't make it correct. And it is still grating. Two asshats disagreed with my comment above enough to downvote. This is also grating because it means they actively support WRONG. And it is WRONG. It's fine, but it is irritating when people are willfully ignorant. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] sem@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 point 3 months ago Could of is gibberish, i agree with you there. But making something twice as short makes perfect sense to me. However short it is now, make it half that size. What is the confusion? permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Wildone@sh.itjust.works 10 points 3 months ago (1 child) Probably AI generated permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] Hellgruen@lemmy.zip 5 points 3 months ago With the amount of ads it feels more like it’s purposefully made longer to increase ad revenue permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Hellgruen@lemmy.zip 5 points 3 months ago With the amount of ads it feels more like it’s purposefully made longer to increase ad revenue permalink fedilink source parent
[–] cenzorrll@piefed.ca 4 points 3 months ago Seriously, it's like a middle school writing assignment to reach 5 pages, but worse. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] SnoringEarthworm@sh.itjust.works -2 points 3 months ago Put a Tl;dr at the top for me, and you can be as autistically thorough as you want to be. permalink fedilink source parent
[+] daychilde@lemmy.world -10 points 3 months ago (3 children) I agree except you can't have something be "several times shorter". Yes, I know what you mean, but "several times" can only be longer. It's like saying "500% less". You can't do that. The best case scenario is that means "20% of the original" but arguably "500% less" would mean you take five times the original amount and subtract it from the original, leaving you with negative 4 times the amount, not twenty percent. Anyway. This is just a light-hearted pedantic pseudo-rant, although I also do stand by the truth of what I'm saying. But I'm not intending corrections, just being silly about a pet peeve of mine. heh hmm... that article might be better off being -4 times its original length, come to that. heh permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] sem@lemmy.blahaj.zone 7 points 3 months ago (2 children) I disagree. Twice as short would be half the length if you asked me (same as twice as long, in a glass half empty, half full situation). In a similar but different example, if you have a 1000 word essay and you cut it to 500 words, you could make it twice as short again by cutting it to 250 words. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] daychilde@lemmy.world -1 points 3 months ago (1 child) Language is generally workable if it communicates the intended message. In that sense, I acknowledge that it is generally understood what something means, but not always. However, it is semantic gibberish, and fuck anyone who supports that gibberish. But yes, it's fine enough in the same way that when someone says "could of" we know they meant "could've" or "could have". It doesn't make it correct. And it is still grating. Two asshats disagreed with my comment above enough to downvote. This is also grating because it means they actively support WRONG. And it is WRONG. It's fine, but it is irritating when people are willfully ignorant. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] sem@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 point 3 months ago Could of is gibberish, i agree with you there. But making something twice as short makes perfect sense to me. However short it is now, make it half that size. What is the confusion? permalink fedilink source parent
[–] sem@lemmy.blahaj.zone 7 points 3 months ago (2 children) I disagree. Twice as short would be half the length if you asked me (same as twice as long, in a glass half empty, half full situation). In a similar but different example, if you have a 1000 word essay and you cut it to 500 words, you could make it twice as short again by cutting it to 250 words. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] daychilde@lemmy.world -1 points 3 months ago (1 child) Language is generally workable if it communicates the intended message. In that sense, I acknowledge that it is generally understood what something means, but not always. However, it is semantic gibberish, and fuck anyone who supports that gibberish. But yes, it's fine enough in the same way that when someone says "could of" we know they meant "could've" or "could have". It doesn't make it correct. And it is still grating. Two asshats disagreed with my comment above enough to downvote. This is also grating because it means they actively support WRONG. And it is WRONG. It's fine, but it is irritating when people are willfully ignorant. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] sem@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 point 3 months ago Could of is gibberish, i agree with you there. But making something twice as short makes perfect sense to me. However short it is now, make it half that size. What is the confusion? permalink fedilink source parent
[–] daychilde@lemmy.world -1 points 3 months ago (1 child) Language is generally workable if it communicates the intended message. In that sense, I acknowledge that it is generally understood what something means, but not always. However, it is semantic gibberish, and fuck anyone who supports that gibberish. But yes, it's fine enough in the same way that when someone says "could of" we know they meant "could've" or "could have". It doesn't make it correct. And it is still grating. Two asshats disagreed with my comment above enough to downvote. This is also grating because it means they actively support WRONG. And it is WRONG. It's fine, but it is irritating when people are willfully ignorant. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] sem@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 point 3 months ago Could of is gibberish, i agree with you there. But making something twice as short makes perfect sense to me. However short it is now, make it half that size. What is the confusion? permalink fedilink source parent
[–] sem@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 point 3 months ago Could of is gibberish, i agree with you there. But making something twice as short makes perfect sense to me. However short it is now, make it half that size. What is the confusion? permalink fedilink source parent