Does this mean that existence of Android allows both Google and Apple to mutually shield themselves from antitrust accusations? They basically get to do what they want, and argue "us refusing to give you X is not antitrust-relevant, because there's the other 50% of the market that refuses to give you X in an entirely different way".
This has nothing to do with android. iphone comes with an app store and that app store contains lots of messenger applications. Users overwhelmingly download one or several messenger applications from the store and use them instead of imessage. What's the similarity to IE here? IE had over 90% of browser share at some point.
I believe MS didn’t get nail on integrating IE into Windows - at least in the US - they got nailed on threatening to increase Windows prices for OEMs (which will ruin them in the competitive OEM market) that bundled Netscape, i.e. abusing their Windows monopoly to harm a competitor.
WhatsApp, Signal, Facebook Messenger are all free to download on iOS - heck it’s offered for download at Apple’s expense; since it’s from their App Store servers.
The only reason we are having this conversation is that some Americans can't fathom the idea that something they want is not available to them for free.
I don't see any practical difference between whatsapp and imessage. iphone has so many apis such as callkit that make apps that use them feel like first parties. I think the only real difference is that you can use the built-in messages to read and send sms... which nobody uses anymore.
> As long as there are options then we can all be happy. I guess.
Oppressing others is really not about options. It's one thing to live your life according to your own beliefs and principles, but it's an entirely different thing to feel entitled to selectively impose them onto everyone around you.
Your personal beliefs only apply to your decisions. You have no right to tell others how they should make personal and health-related decisions, specially as history shows that those tend to suddenly do 180s regarding their values once they are faced with the same issues everyone else faces.
It makes no sense to me that one would train a chatbot on chatgpt conversations and not filter strings that literally say "openai" and "chatgpt". Extreme incompetence.
Excluding OpenAI/ChatGPT generated content without excluding discourse that mentions OpenAI / ChatGPT such as news articles and industry papers seems like a nontrivial problem to solve at scale.
You seem oblivious to the irony here—owning a car already puts you in the upper tier of wealth in the world.
Talking about Manhattan specifically, this is already about the most expensive place in the world and the only place in the US with this scheme in place, adding more traffic isn’t going to change that so no point in using it as an example of anything.
Plenty of countries that are not so car dependent have pedestrian zones in less affluent cities.
In my country millions of poor people drive 18 years old cars with average resale value of 500 USD. Maybe that's still a lot compared to people who starve in Africa, but we are not in Africa.
Something of a Simpson's paradox there that one of the boroughs with some of the country's wealthiest households (Chelsea), maintains one of the lower levels of car ownership (35%).
Petrol cars that meet the ULEZ standards are generally those first registered as new with the DVLA after 2005, although cars that meet the standards have been available since 2001
Diesel cars that meet the standards are generally those first registered with the DVLA as new after September 2015
That's not my experience in London tbh; you can get away with a 7 year old diesel car, for example. Also, this is being done where the public transport is second to none, so everyone has an option for local transport 20 hours or so a day.
Yes, this is literally what they’re achieving. It’s incredible that so many people on here don’t see it, but my guess is cause they’ve never actually looked into the people they’re displacing and negatively affecting.
>The Spanish right wing establishment isn't comfortable when not confidently in power, either by directly being in power, or by being sure whoever is in power wouldn't dare to change course on certain policies.
Could say exactly the same about the socialist party. Or any other party, really.
Also: the party that you call right wing is as progressive as the socialist party. They have never done and will never do any change that is not progressive. Last time they were in power they raised taxes, did nothing to the homosexual marriage, abortion, and domestic violence laws, etc etc.
And to add to this: the "far right" party is just plain right wing conservatives. Not far right. I am amazed nowadays how, not only in Spain, but in Dpain more so, they call almost everything "far right".
If a party is the one most conservative and most authoritarian in parliament, it is completely fair to describe it as "far right". What else could it be? In order to be "plain right" you would need a party further to the right in parliament.
They may not seem extreme to some people, but that only says something about the political leaning of those people.
> If a party is the one most conservative and most authoritarian in parliament, it is completely fair to describe it as "far right"
This is a matter of perception. Far right is isually (literature) described as right, violent and collectivist (facist) wing. Which by the way is quite similar to communism, just with a couple principles changed if you analyze it seriously from individual vs collective rights. How "far right" is used in Spain and a lot of media is not like that at all. Far right is España 2000 and Democracia Nacional.
> They may not seem extreme to some people, but that only says something about the political leaning of those people.
Again, that is your perception. Your perception comes from the status quo, and seems reasonable from a social point of view. However, when the media uses a term incorrectly and politically so often, then it loses its meaning.
That is why it is a good thing to know what we have in front of us and call it by its name. Otherwise all words end up losing their meaning. Far right is often not what most media calls far right by standard literature terms. Maybe by propaganda terms. But even Popular Party or Ciudadanos was tagged as far right sometimes. That's just the political tagging game.
I'd rather see what parties propose rather than qualifying them as something. I think it is more useful for everyone.
That's a bit of an over-simplification of what actually happened these weeks. Or a tremendous over-simplification, rather.
Not that I really care about the outcome (two parties could've won, and they are both progressive, so I will be unhappy either way), but the methods have crossed a few red lines.
might be an over-simplification but is right.
Every year there are "indultos" (pardons?) happening, the famous Aznar's ones[1], and Rajoy's infamous "aministia fiscal"[2] but I guess is only now when it's convenient to push that narrative, no protests whatsoever for the other cases.
Amnistia for tax evaders, it is democracy.
Amnistia for those protesting making a performance-like referedum (everyone knew it would not actual effect), that's not democracy.
It's a logic that I can not comprehend, I only can explain it if you consume so much mass media that you actually believe everything that is thrown at you.
I am a close relative of a judge. I have asked plenty of non-media questions to get an idea of how our system works, should work and what does not work and did not for a long time (and now we have problems because the situation changed).
By the way, I am not against independence FWIW. It is just the way things have been conducted are very aggraviating.
It's not the same when you do it because you need it to be the president.
I don't agree with pardons; it's something that simply shouldn't exist in this day and age. It doesn't matter to me what brand of progressivism does it.
