Nope, it was so they could take the 30% cut of every penny that is spent on one of their platforms, and also so that it would be extremely inconvenient to leave their ecosystem since doing so would mean leaving behind most of your data.
If you use public roads, have an insurance policy of any kind, rely on the fact that public services like police and firemen are around in case you need them, or live in a suburb at all, you are having some aspects of your life subsidized by the public at large.
That’s how you get a population decline, which is actually probably worse in the long run.
I am going to assume you also live in the US here, because that’s the environment I’m most familiar with and is where I’ve heard the most complaints about highways for. The problem is partly that they were built to go directly through city centers rather than around cities, and it’s way too late to change that, and partly because General Motors propaganda meant that everyone considers cars to just be the default way of getting anywhere to the extent that other options often just don’t exist. For getting between cities, and especially for getting good and produce between cities, highways are a fine option to exist. I would absolutely prefer that high speed rail existed as an alternative, but even if it did I am certain there are some people that would still find it more convenient to drive.
I think most people here agree that a ban is inappropriate for saying that. As for why needing to pay only for your own kids would result in poor education, it’s because an absolutely massive amount of the population just outright couldn’t afford it. Schools are expensive to run, even more so if you want them to actually give a decent education.
I am of the opinion that Highways existing in general are a net good, but definitely shouldn’t be built the way they have been and need to be given viable alternatives in most cases. I would have used the example of paying for roads without owning a car, but I made a few assumptions about the kind of person I was replying to and tried to tailor my argument to the kind of person I figured they were (as in, the kind of person that definitely owns a car and uses it extensively).
And also what if they do eventually have kids, how fair would it be if they took advantage of an institution that they hadn’t been paying into the success of.
To be clear, I don’t think a ban is an appropriate response to saying something like that, but it does have the same implications as saying “why should I pay for car insurance, I’m not going to get in a crash” or “why pay for highways, I never leave my suburb”. Even if you don’t directly benefit from those services existing and being paid for, other people do and you actually do benefit from those other people being better off. For the educating kids subject specifically, think about when you’re 60, do you want to be taken care of by doctors that got a subpar education, or for your retirement funds to run out because the institutions they rely on collapsed due to a lack of educated workers. It is to everyone’s personal benefit in the long run to pay for public services that help the community even if they don’t take advantage of them personally and directly.
To answer that question, it’s because it is in the best interest of society as a whole including the people that don’t have children for the next generation to grow up educated and able to contribute productively to society.
They can’t really afford the risk it entails, is the point they are trying to make.
Copyright protects already executed ideas, stripping that protection down to less than a decade would be completely unhelpful.
It technically means the government needs to pass a very high bar before it can restrict any kind of speech, that bar being strict scrutiny.
Of course, the view of the public and the court historically has been that blocking union busting activities has passed strict scrutiny, since it a) is justified by the government’s interest in preventing the kind of violence that occurred when union busting was allowed, b) doesn’t restrict actions outside of union busting, so it’s narrowly tailored, and c) is the least restrictive method yet proposed, only other method I can think of is compelling union membership for everyone.
If ethical reasons are a concern, you might want to avoid Trader Joe’s as well on account of their union busting activities.
Not really no. SMS is nowhere near as versatile as a service like Discord in terms of being able to meet new people or have conversations that don’t overload unrelated but potentially interested people with notifications.
As much as I’d love that idea, I would guess there are financial reasons to not allow things like that, as both advertisers and credit card companies seem to really hate erotic and erotic adjacent media.
Didn’t even offer a refund it sounds like.
“Hey, I know we just fucked up and let a ton of personal information out into the wild. As compensation how would you like to keep using us?”
I will point out there are actually pretty good driverless cars, they just aren’t made by Tesla. Look up Waymo if you want to look into them.
I agree it would be best for Wikipedia to address this on their end, but I have actually no idea where to begin with asking them to make a change like this.
Charging while undocked and using the built in stand.