ilex

Maybe you have unrealistic expectations. Have you tried thinking even lower of yourself?

Well, its most of the normal music and then a bunch of pirated music. It's like YT music but with a better "Start Radio" button.

Soundcloud might be an alternative worth looking into. For the music I tend to search for, I find I'm more likely to find it on Soundcloud, and it can take years to migrate from SC to YTM.

While YTM and SC were both $10, putting up with the worse platform was a reasonable price for no YT ads. Now that the grandfathering is ending and the price is jumping to $14, for US folks, I'm feeling the pressure to migrate.

Spotify has invested significant $$ in upgrading their platform.

YTM lets you access user-uploaded content. With that comes more in the way of remixes and Indy artists. The platform itself is pretty dogshit, though.

Your mileage may vary coming up in December. The $10 crew in the US will see a 40% increase at or near the end of the year. Grandfathering is going away.

This brings the cost of Google's video/music service to match Amazon's video/music service. Are those services of the same quality?

Soundcloud ($10) Is the real competitor to YT-Music in my book. Both benefit from user-generated and user-uploaded content. While there is crossover, I have found more tracks on Soundcloud that aren't on YT than the other way around.

The article became increasingly redundant as it continued. The crux seems to be Google isn't their employer. These workers work for a subcontractor, Cognizant. Cognizant performs services for YouTube Music.

Cognizant is refusing to bargain citing the ongoing relevant litigation* between its employees and Google.

• I'm not sure what the legal process is called for union claims.

Some of the employees are striking for 1 day.

I don't understand your comment. To put it another way, vaccine was less bad than covid. Or Covid was worse than the vaccine. Do you still object with the simplified phrasing?

It does make sense. And it is so so easy to get tangled.

Agreed. I misremembered what the issue was. It's been a second.

The issue was balancing risk of serious side effect versus risk of serious complication.

There were side effects that were serious. The vaccines and boosters effected different age groups differently. Some age groups were more likely to develop serious side effects.

Covid effected different age groups differently. Some age groups were more likely to develop serious complications.

In the instances where the risk of serious side effect was more likely than the risk of serious complication, at least one of the boosters was more likely to be bad for the patient.

If it is more likely to cause harm, I can understand not wanting to take that version.

My point is it's ok to refuse medicine based on medical evidence.

Forgive my ignorance on the subject. Instead of reading studies directly, I used the opinions of doctors quoting studies to inform my opinions. If memory serves, for the first booster, it was more likely that young men would develop serious complications from the vaccine booster than if they developed covid instead. I think they were heart complications.

So if a drug is shown to be more detrimental than helpful, why is it bad to refuse it, or ask for a different drug, or for more investigation?

I didn't refuse the vaccine. Get the fuck out of here.

E: And all evidence didn't show it was safe. There were risks. In the case of the vaccine itself, iirc, the risks of serious side effect were less than the risk of serious complication from covid. The primary 2-stage vaccine is a good call.

I did refuse a particular booster because the available data on it showed for my demographic the risks outweighed the potential gains; it was more likely to harm me than help me.