One thing I can always be sure about, is reading premium gold plated, high quality, absolute dumbest nonsense about EU policies and state of EU on this website.
> On average you include sleep deprived people, driving way over the speed limit, at night, in bad weather, while drunk, and talking to someone. FSD is very likely situationally useful.
Are those people also able to suprevise FSD like the law and Tesla expects them to? That's also a question.
UBI would be pure deficit spending which would basically double it. Our interest is already the #2 federal outlay at $1 trillion (defense is #5 last I heard) and we're already in fiscal dominance. So the end result is UBI would trigger much higher inflation which would make those UBI checks worthless.
>Android Chrome not having extensions is just a build option toggle. It doesn't have extensions because Google doesn't want it to, not for technical reasons.
The leak screenshots are from the dev version of the app. It has not been confirmed to actually have extensions enabled in the prod version, which is what the parent poster was talking about. It would have been prudent to actually read the post I was replying to and the actual article, not just look at pictures.
Can you be specific which countries are you talking about?
Because you seem to be in a word fight with very vague arguments and with someone else with very vague arguments and it's not even clear you're talking about same things.
So can you be clear on:
- Which counties you're talking about?
- Why are those countries important to think about in this case?
- Why doesn't this feature help people from regions that can afford a mid-to-top range smartphone?
Pick any you like, Income/GDP is more important metric rather than which specific country.
>- Why are those countries important to think about in this case?
Why are you asking me? Ask the people who brought up third world countries as the target user base for phones with display output. I'm the one not agreeing with this point since it's stupid.
>- Why doesn't this feature help people from regions that can afford a mid-to-top range smartphone?
I explained already below in detail why. But to reiterate in short, if your monthly income is in the ~200$ a month ballpark, you're not gonna be spending 300$ on a mid-to-top range smartphone just for the display output feature even if you managed to save up that money. Even in Europe some people skoff at paying 300 Euros for a phone but some here think people in nations with 10x less income are somehow the userbase for this feature because in their mind those people can't afford a 20$ dumpster PC, but somehow they can afford a 300$ pixel 8 and external monitor.
I have some friends in Argentina where even just a few USD goes a long way. I occasionally throw them something like $10 USD and that gets them GPU, disk upgrades, etc., it's nuts.
'Tax evasion' is when you are breaking the law. There are various other names, like 'tax optimisation' or 'tax avoidance' is when you do it legal. And the boundaries of what you can call 'tax avoidance' are fuzzy: when in Singapore, I eat out a lot more and pay someone else to clean my home. When in Germany, taxes on labour are too high, so I cook and clean myself. Is that 'tax avoidance' and refusing to 'pay my share'?
It's definitely a change in behaviour induced by taxation.
Another example in Germany both capital gains and dividends are taxed. Capital gains are (mostly) only taxed when you sell, dividends are taxed straight away. But each year you can get a small amount of dividends tax free. So it's tax efficient to structure your capital returns to first max out that tax free allowance, and take the rest as capital gains.
That's annoying and complicated.
Singapore is simpler and has lower taxes, so I don't bother optimising anything, and just let my decision be guided by whatever makes financial sense, without worrying about taxes. (In my case, I'm investing in accumulating funds that just never pay any dividends, but instead re-invest them straight away. That way I don't have to worry about re-investing dividends manually.)
Another example: when you have a carbon tax one of the intended consequences is for companies and people to change their affairs such that they emit less CO2, thus optimising their tax bill. The system only works when people 'avoid paying their share'.
Or he could buy a laptop with a slightly slower chip which runs well with Linux and not pay money and his time for privilege of supporting a company building incompatible products.
This isn't a "supposed law" or some new interpretation, this is pretty well established part of trademark law dating back to the 1800s in the US.
The flip side of the law is that you have to be active in defending and using your trademark if you want to keep it. It prevents the sort of patent troll abuses we see in that system.
If "Leggo my Eggo" was last used years ago by Kellogs, and they haven't used it or defended it or other "Eggo" related trademarks since then, a court is much more likely to allow the use by other businesses, even if Kellog's still hold the registered trademark.
Kellog's choices here are to risk losing or weakening the trademark as a whole, or to sue since the other party has rejected other solutions.
If you were taught that law you were also taught that every use of a given word doesn't immediately mean infringement if it doesn't present a danger of confusion.
This tone is unnecessary, unhelpful and against the spirit and rules of the site. It also doesn’t advance the conversation. If you disagree, that’s fine, but refrain from using invalid techniques like ad hominem attacks and straw men arguments.
Edit: looked at your comment history and realized I’m not going to get anywhere with this. This is just how you behave when presented with information.
Rules of this site also ask for argumentation that goes beyond "someone sued so they must be right".
You made a claim of trademark infringement when in reality no such thing was actually proven. You just automatically assumed the big corp was right based on something that even the lawyers don't yet agree on. I'm sorry if me calling you out on your bullshit makes you angry to the point where you felt the need to sift through my posts for a personal attack.
reply