This is just like Canada banning foreign investment in real estate. It admits there’s a problem, data harvesting , homes as investments, but just solves a small part of the problem pertaining to “foreign bad guys” while ignoring the larger domestic issue.
All it does is make the government look like they did something without actually confronting the powerful interests that are causing the problem.
There are no standards for hitting pedestrians, who don’t exist in the u.s. There are plenty for car on car collisions cause that’s all that matters.
Maybe eventually, it has to do with market share and if the service is a “core platform”. Signal doesn’t have enough market share to warrant it yet, even iMessage wasn’t forced to since it’s not that popular in EU. The law was mainly targeted at WhatsApp as that’s THE messenger in the EU.
I get paying a decent wage but why ban tipping. Here in California there is no tipped wage difference and min wage is pretty high but I still tip whenever I get the chance because I earn a lot more than service workers and that $5 is worth more to them than me. I also appreciate that it goes directly to the workers instead of through the boss who will take god knows off the top. It should definitely not be required and discrete enough so that those who don’t can’t be shamed but banning it just hurts workers.
I think you misunderstand what apples value proposition is, at least nowadays. The app store and not being able to use other app stores is not a reason people get iPhones. Maybe back when app stores were first created and the threat of malware was greater people might have considered it but nowadays no one cares. Even the idea of a unified ecosystem isn’t as much a selling point any more because Google and Samsung offer similar seamless integrations with their accessories. You can see this in their marketing, they aren’t focused on how all the apple products work together easily any more. In their marketing you can see what they think their value proposition is, and what was their big Superbowl ad this year, longer battery life …
Apple at this point knows it doesn’t have much of a value proposition for switching from android. So the only way they’re gonna sell new phones is to get the kids who don’t have a phone and convince the people who do have an iPhone to get a new one.
They convince the kids through their tried and true aesthetics and lifestyle marketing, this is about half there marketing these days. This along with iMessage in the U.S. and the general fear of being in the out group and obsession with brands that younger people have moved them towards iPhones.
They convince the current users with incremental upgrades, eg. Better battery life, better camera; and maintaining the walled garden and keeping exit costs high so they don’t turn to androids for those incremental updates.
All this is to say that apple having a single app store isn’t a sign of consumer sentiment, but a sign of apples desire to milk as much profits out of their current users as they can. Other app stores can only benefit the consumers, either they do get them for lower fees or don’t because they put some value on the “ecosystem”. From a company’s perspective yes your right that they want to be able to do anything to their product they want, but the goal of regulation is to step in when the companies desires are at odds with the people or the consumers desire, this is one of those cases.
If anything this was worse under the old system. Making art previously costed a lot of money, you had to pay the artists for their time and money, and better artists cost more. So in the past that oil company could commission 100 top quality artists to make corporate propaganda while a person who cares for the environment but has no money could only make a drawing limited by their own personal technical artistic ability, which could be just stick figures.
This is why “high quality” consumerist and capitalist “art” and branding in the form of advertising is so abundant meanwhile anti-consumerist, anti-capitalist art is rarer, no one’s paying to get it made.
Now any cause, regardless of money, can create at least mid art to get there message across. Those causes can also have way more people behind them then an oil company can reasonably hire
It’s sort of like how the gun changed how power worked. Previously a king could use there resources to pay for a smaller army of well equipped highly trained knights to subjugate a group of people. Then when the gun came training and equipment didn’t matter nearly as much and it became more of a numbers game, and to get those numbers rulers needed to give more power to the masses in order to be able to marshall them for their cause. Those rulers who didn’t got overthrown in revolutions.
Why would real meaning and messages be harder to find, does AI generated art inherently have less meaning?
Let’s say I wanted to convey the message that oil companies are destroying the environment so , throwing subtlety out the window, come up with an idea of “a vampiric oil baron draining mother nature of oil”, does the picture that is generated from me putting that prompt into an AI generator have any less meaning then if I actually drew it myself?
For all the advances in AI it still lacks intentionality, and always will under these current models, that has to be supplied by the person in the form of a prompt. I’d say that intention is the source of messages and meaning in art. AI just allows people without technical abilities in art to express those intentions, feelings and messages.
This is taking the comment out of context, she said the federal minimum wage should be as high as $50 for places like the Bay area, she then went on to say that the national minimum wage should be raised to $20-25 based on affordability but that she’s chiefly concerned with California.
That’s what she was saying, everyone is taking her out of context. She was saying the federal minimum wage should be as high as $50 in places like the Bay area, she then went on to say that the national wage should be brought up to ~$20-25 and base it on affordability.
Because you want a person for president who’s seasoned through and through, but not so damned season he won’t try something new.
This, there are many reasons people do opiates, isolation, doctors prescription, homelesness, economic depression etc. but the only reason people are doing fentanyl is because it’s cheap and available, and it’s cheap and available because the war on drugs makes it so the most concentrated substances are the most easily supplied.
If the war on drugs ends fentanyl goes away just like those high proof moonshines that were making people blind in prohibition. Opiate use won’t because the other underlying problems would remain, but it would be far more safe.
Yeah your right, got it confused with a conference around here that they still have ads up for. Edited
Israel is not even a good geopolitical partner in the Middle East. Nearly everyone hates them so whenever we do operations over there we keep them out because we know even their presence will increase tensions and lose hearts and minds. They’re good for spying on Iran but you have to take everything with a grain of salt because they could be lying in order to try and get us to be more confrontational because they despise Iran.
The reasons the U.S. government overwhelmingly supports Israel is:
I’m all for players getting payed and unionizing but I think getting rid of college sports would only hurt the players. Less people would watch them and therefore the players would get less money. A large part of the audience for college sports is students and alumni, if you take that away there’s not much reason for people to tune in or go up to Hanover New Hampshire to watch their basketball team play and buy merch, especially if they’re not a good team.
It works in England because soccer’s the only big sport so you can make some money even if your a lower tier team.
Not focusing on academics is a problem but if the option is to have to play in a minor league team, earn a middling to low income that’s going to basic neccesities, not make it to the big leagues and be left with no other career prospects or savings; or go to college, make a low income but be able to save it as room and board are covered, not make it to the big leagues but at least have the piece of paper that permits you to even think about having a decent life in this country, I’d go with the latter.
You can disagree with Maduro and his autocratic actions without supporting sanctions that mostly harm the civilian population.
The electoral college doesn’t help small states, it helps swing states. Small rural states won’t matter in presidential elections with or without the electoral college because either way they won’t have many votes. The problem that makes the electoral college skew away from the popular vote, isn’t the slightly higher representation of small states, it’s that it incentives states to do winner take all for their votes because it makes politicians prioritize them. It makes more sense for a politician to try and flip 50,000 votes in Michigan and get all it’s 16 votes then try to flip half the population of a bunch of smaller more partisan states and still get less electoral votes. Hillary didn’t lose because she didn’t visit north Dakota, she lost because she didn’t go to Michigan.
Also small states still have the Senate to protect their interests, and as Mitch McConnell has shown that chamber holds a lot of power.
I see no contradiction, only skyrocketing credit card debt.
We really need to vote her out this round, San Francisco deserves better than this
Not in California, there’s so many elections. In 2022 a similar situation happened here in San Francisco where a state assembly member retired and there was the same primary, main, primary, main election. Also the primary for everything but the president is open and the main acts as a runoff for the top two, this is why they’ll do a primary on every election whereas in other states the parties would just nominate someone. So in the state assembly race it was an open field for the first primary, than the same 2 nearly identical Democrats for the next three elections.
Then there was also having to vote for newsom twice within a year because of the recall.
It’s nearly all vote by mail these days and they automatically send a ballot to anyone registered though so it’s not that bad.
You can if the company is a non-profit like open AI. Basically when you take on investments for a company you declare what the goal/purpose of a company is, either to make money (for profit) or for some other nebulous cause (non-profit) eg. Ending hunger or saving humanity from AI. If an investor thinks you aren’t following that goal and are pursuing some other goal then they can sue the company.
Sadly most companies are for profit so they can only be sued if they’re trying to do something that doesn’t optimally make money. So a fossil fuel company can’t be sued for legally dumping poison into the air if it’s the most cost efficient method, but they can be sued if they do a less cost efficient solution that would make air quality better because improving people’s health isnt there goal, making money is.