Why do so many people make the same analytical error? It's really simple what is going on: information and power asymmetries are used to accumulate more wealth and therefore power. This happens through a whole bunch of mechanisms usually referred to as market power abuse in economics all centered around getting control of a pain point that makes it less likely people will leave for a competitor and then pushing prices down (think chain restaurants saturating a region and only offering minimum wage, think the app economy getting you on the app and watching your every move to price your labor as low as possible, think larger companies spending money on lobyists to push new regulations to decrease competition and kill start ups)
The government is implicit in a lot of this when it should be doing stuff like breaking up big companies to curtail it. UBI and VAT would just exacerbate the actual problem because it would grow the government and the government would eventually just get captured again (or stay captured) and be put to work ensuring the wealth keeps flowing to a select few.
So the alternative is not a disaster, where we have no rights, our privacy is constantly violated and we live a surveillance world where major companies can do whatever they want in the name of money, without caring at all about you?
So the alternative is not a disaster? We have no rights, our privacy is constantly violated and we live in a surveillance world where major companies can do whatever they want in the name of money, without caring at all about your privacy in any form?
I'd take the GDPR burden any day.
And people don't know how GOOD the EU is for warranty.
Picture this: you have "costco return" on amazon and for 2 years instead of one. And this is valid for every shop actually.
No, it's just a bad piece of legislation that follow the pattern the EU almost always follows: Take a good idea, and then figure out the most invasive, costly and imprudent way to implement it, drastically raising everyone's costs. It makes business less likely to happen in the EU, lowers growth and protects incumbent oligopolies because they can afford to throw lawyers at it, while upcoming competitors can not, especially the organic kind fixing real problems (and the kind I would argue is the most valuable to a country vs the weird PE driven ones).
Of course you would take the GDPR burden. The direct cost isn't to you and the way it extremely negatively affects you isn't directly obvious immediately, it happens slowly over time with much larger effect than you realize. The mechanism is less quality company growth, more large company stagnation, lower pay over your life time and higher taxes because the tax base doesn't grow as much as people choose to develop the next big thing elsewhere and don't create as many competing companies in the other economic areas.
I appreciate that. Noone needs to waste their potty reading time wondering why someone so maliciously and prolifically misspelled "wanker" in multiple different forms throughout a whole article like what happens when you read this article...
I don't quite follow this, but if you mean it wasn't the right call, we can certainly change it again. (And if you did mean it, sorry for my oversensitive sarcasm detector!)
It was me being obtuse because it made me laugh, lol. I was pretending they misspelled "wanker" as "maker" in the press release because wanker is a british slang term that is much more accurate than maker in this context. It was also a little of me bending my understanding of the rules here to post it because it made me laugh to do so, although I probably should have kept it to myself to save everyone else's time who will read it and feel it wasted their time.
the only good smart tv is one with no network connection. As long as the manufacturer has any control of the compute on your device they will always be pressured to abuse it to grow revenue. You need to budget 200 to 600 additional dollars for a linux box and use that
That's still not good. I recently switched from a Sceptre dumb TV to a top of the line LG OLED model, and it is sooooo slow. Everything takes forever because it's got to wait for the network connection which doesn't exist, play all its stupid animations, run the "AI" bullshit, and attempt an internet connection again.
Then you did it wrong. The tv should be turned on and set to display one port, say hdmi1 then never touched again until its time to shut it off. Volume should be handled through hdmi-cec from the tvs perspective it should get an on or off signal and maybe some volume signals and it should display hdmi and that is the entorety of its existence.
then put something like the OREI 8k HDMI 5 in 1 switch in front. Costs less than 60 dollars, you can control it with whatever universal remote you want or the remote it comes with. If I needed that I would just map it on my flirc skip remote and continue operating my whole setup from that one remote very easily with the tv only ever getting on/off and maybe volume signals. The nice thing about this solution is it lets you run everything at hdmi 2.1, which is often impossible on even newer tvs because only one or two of the ports are hdmi 2.1 on many tvs.
No, my response is protect yourself from the reality of the market via mitigation because you and i cant affect change because the incentive is to get worse for the corporation and minimum efficient scale is too high to have enough competitors to change the benefit math
Post secondary should be setup as a loan for the subsidized portion withloan forgiveness prorated over a decade. If you leave the tax net it converts to payments like any other loan. Everywhere should be doing this, its just good policy. The carrot is way more of a problem because this place needs to be less junk on nearly every measureable dimension. the examples are too numerous to list but housing needs to be a lot more affordable and there is probably a hundred things to fix to make that one thing function betteras one example.
Why do you think any of that is relevant? Of course they will lose. There are enough of them to be a significant minority because of how terrible our federal government is and how big a joke our legal system is. This is entirely about trying to control which voting cycle they lose on. The left wants it on the next provincial election ballot because its poison for the incumbent conservatives. The conservatives want it anywhere other than on the next provincial election ballot so it can die before it poisons their election chances. thats all that this is. It helps that smith is right and the judge quashing the referendum is a yet another travesty.
Because the only certainty is there is no ideal sort of setup, just a set of probably decent options for the current conditions, which are highly changeable. The only thing that is certain from a benefit maximization perspective is there are a lot of companies much larger than minimum efficient scale that we should probably antitrust out of existence to increase competition
The government is implicit in a lot of this when it should be doing stuff like breaking up big companies to curtail it. UBI and VAT would just exacerbate the actual problem because it would grow the government and the government would eventually just get captured again (or stay captured) and be put to work ensuring the wealth keeps flowing to a select few.
reply