This post specifically says you can’t (without the bypass many won’t understand how to do).

I’m sure this has been solved already but I’m just wondering how you ensure people are voting based on the helpfulness and/or merit of the response. That’s the ideal on Lemmy but it’s obviously not always the case here. Presumably, you’d have to be logged in on the other platform to vote but you can just see the discussion from Lemmy, I guess?

Useful constraints would focus discussion to keep questions/replies brief, relevant, and hopefully helpful, wouldn’t they? I just wonder how up and downvoting would work since that would go very differently from Lemmy.

Yeah that phrasing was especially egregious.

Yup, just walk away… or answer ‘no’ since smart folks don’t always say ‘yes’

Or juice “profits.” (I’ve never understood people having cereal with juice, but maybe it works with Apple Jacks.)

So many Martin Shkrelis out there pricing drugs to the highest level they can get away with. Every big pharmaceutical company does this kind of thing, especially with new drugs.

I avoid those as soon as I notice the signs, but I’ve found less and less instances over time (which is a relief since there used to be loads of pages like that). I thought I read somewhere it’s against Amazon’s own rules to do this. Not 100% sure though.

This is so true. Shareholders couldn’t care less if he was popular with customers. All they care about is whether he can do anything to boost profits. In their world, even the situation with Unity can be spun as “innovative” (in the sense that it introduced another revenue stream for the company) and that even if this initial implementation is scrapped, it can be learned from and improved on for future ones.