OceanMan

No way. I spend most of my time figuring out what needs to be done or what will be least disruptive. There is plenty I can and do use it for, and I know it could help me more to automate things…but it’s almost like it makes the job more difficult at times.

quote:

---

Or kicked out like at a casino. Equating 86 to assassination is being a bit dramatic.

---

Is it? They have tried to kick him out. They have also tried killing him several times. Did you see anyone condemn those attempts other than just one time say “I condemn political violence” and proceed to attack him just like before?

The more people that want him out, the more people will not care if he actually does get killed. This has been going on for more than a decade, it’s part of our culture at this point, it should be plain as day for basically everyone.

If they fixed something with new parts, and it broke again in 2 weeks, make them fix it. But at the very minimum, you need to know what was originally broken, what was fixed, what is broken now.

I suggest you go to a convenient dealer and get them to quote it. Bring your previous service ticket with you so they understand what was fixed. They will be able to help you more than we can with the info provided

You got to put some effort into getting your story straight if you hope to have any recourse here. You can’t threaten anything you can’t explain.

ETA: send them a draft Google review and email to BBB. You’d be surprised how much that moves the needle these days.

If you paid on a credit card, which I hope everyone knows is the best method these days, threaten a chargeback. I wouldn’t even be inclined to let them fix it again. Tell you CC that they refused to fix it, which of course you have documented in writing (get to work if not, if they are non responsive document that). Get a local dealer to fix after they refuse and request the chargeback.

quote:

---

Yes it's mainly the covered area, the splashpad and the little concert area. Kids riding bikes through the splash area while little kids are there. Kids riding E bikes through there very fastly, jumping the berm behind the "ampitheater" etc. There has been a crackdown on kids and E bikes in the area and the trace. Kids riding 30 ish mph and passing close to slower bikes and runners.

---

Yes this

quote:

---

This board’s melt would make Chernobyl jealous if Biden had done something like this

---

Biden caused this.

There is no logic in reversing roles between Biden and Trump ever. Biden has zero influence whatsoever.

And to your particular point, it would have been unnoticeable, his posts that is. The money would have been the standard cut for the big guy.

quote:

---

You forgot AND more quickly than the non subscribers Seconds can mean everything on these trades.

---

I don’t think you really understand how these things work. They are offering software compatibility efficiency. Not faster data. The subscriber needs to program their end of the API to actually realize these efficiencies. They would not have built the API, if they didn’t expect anyone to pay for usage. It’s like building a bridge, the other side needs to first decide if it’s worth crossing, then decide how much they are willing to pay to build roads connecting to it.

quote:

---

So you are asserting that people who have the API are not getting the information earlier than those who don’t pay?

---

I’m asserting that they aren’t getting the information earlier than it is publicly available. If it works like every other API I have ever encountered, It is getting to the information to them in a more readily usable format more quickly than before.

quote:

---

Why then would they be paying 1.2 million per year?

---

Because API access is how many software companies, particularly those with data, earn revenue.

quote:

---

It's not the topic of this thread. The OP was that Truth Social API is available for those who will pay $100K for access. You are being disingenuous trying to limit the discussion and frame it to fit your argument

---

Wrong. I am countering an argument that you made. And you still won’t acknowledge it. Admit that you thought this meant exclusive/premium/early access, like you described it. I’m not being disingenuous, you brought it up and I’m trying to correct that. I don’t really care if you are trying to broaden the discussion, I’m trying to do that respectfully. But you are indeed trying to broaden the discussion your acute position regarding the OP.

quote:

---

I have said that he is monetizing the Office of the Presidency by selling Truth Social API

---

Ok, we can narrow the discussion again.

quote:

---

Correct for a $100K fee payable to Truth Social where he is the principal shareholder. So it is paying for access to the Presidency.

---

Ok, so not premium access. We are getting somewhere.

quote:

---

I fully agree - There is no question the Biden Administration threatened Meta and Twitter to de-platform Trump which facilitated the need to create an alternative platform to get his and the MAGA-verse messgae out.

---

Great, I appreciate you acknowledging this as a separate point.

quote:

---

However, when Trump won reelection, I believe the value proposition changed once Trump assumed office. He is no longer a private citizen and businessman, he is now POTUS and he has or should endeavor to avoid a conflict of interest. Once again, the solution here would be for Trump himself to divest his interests in Truth Social.

---

Ok so now we are back to your point. It’s a fair one. I think we differ on how practical this actually is, but I will again concede that I agree with the principle of what you are saying, and don’t intend to convince you why this may be different because of any specific nuance. I really just don’t think this news materially changes anything that hasn’t already been in motion, and that seems to be your entire position. But you did argue with me about the nature of this business offering, which you don’t seem to want to acknowledge, so it would be great if we could establish that this news doesn’t really affect your opinion, it just reminds you of it, and we can stop arguing about what an API is or does.

quote:

---

I don't know why this is so hard to understand.

---

I think my point is easier to understand. The thread is about the API, and several people including yourself seem to be mischaracterizing it - that is, unless I completely misunderstand how it works. I don’t believe it is “premium” or “early” access how you described it. If your overall point is about Truth Social ownership and who benefits from its monetization, I don’t understand why you are arguing how the technology functions, which is the topic of the thread. I’m giving you a lot more courtesy to stay on topic than you are giving me, yet you are the one questioning why I don’t understand your point that apparently dismisses the API altogether, despite your mischaracterization of it being used to support your point. You want to talk about the appropriateness of Trump owning the company, that’s fine, I told you that wasn’t an unfair point. But I don’t think that’s the point of the thread. I have seen many people just blindly say “this is corruption” or “he is selling access” or “this is insider trading” - I don’t think that’s is the purpose of the API, you have yet to concede that point so I have continued the back and forth. I truly don’t know why that is hard to understand.

Further, it can be argued that API access will give people faster access to their things he shares, as things will get pushed out more quickly with automation like is currently being done with other platforms. Not people with subscriptions, people getting information from others buying the subscriptions, because they make money off of them.

quote:

---

be required to divest his ownership interests in the platform. It doesn't matter what lead to the circumstances of Truth Social's creation or the risks Trump took to build the platform.

---

I have tried to be transparent that I am giving my opinion in this regard - but I think it absolutely does. To be direct, I think the federal government, specifically the Biden administration, prompted Meta and Twitter to remove Trump. That’s either a clear first amendment violation or violation of what makes those companies “platforms”. It would have been fine for Twitter to sell what he was giving away, but they kicked him off. The federal government allowed Truth to go public. It’s lost a bunch of money and people have laughed at it. So now the company actually has a plan to earn some revenue to recoup some of those losses and people are losing their minds. Are they really profiting if they are allowed to lose money but can’t generate revenue? The government stepping now undermines itself as they regulate public company offerings. And again my opinion, I think they have allowed this to go on because they not only thought it would fall flat, but also didn’t want to face lawsuits from stockholders that obviously thought the way this company would earn revenue is through Trumps posts, particularly because they had a hand in those posts leaving Twitter in the first place.

I’m not saying any of this to invalidate your opinion. In a non clown world, what you described would have been a fairly standard expectation. But the government intervened to the point of getting into its own way to the point it was enabled rather than prohibited.

quote:

---

The mechanics of the platform and this pricing tier is irrelevant to the discussion.

---

Wait…that is exactly the discussion…the API has launched. :confused:

quote:

---

Con: It would reduce the relative influence of less-populous states, potentially causing candidates to focus almost exclusively on large urban population centers

---

The main Con is that it’s established in the constitution and should not really be discussed unless it clearly benefits the entire country