There are two different problems. One is easier to solve.
There are two different problems. One is easier to solve.
To think they found a position that is morally reprehensible from every possible angle, under all interpretations, and also involves bodily fluids, that’s somehow amazing.
Who is “we”, my friend?
If only CO2’s warming properties had been discovered in 1856. If only good models of global warming had been created in 1896. If only those had happened, maybe society could have taken more substantial actions…
Of course they understand. That’s why they didn’t steal the car.
Lol they’ll charge customers more if they get regulated. But that means they think customers would pay it, which means they think customers could be paying it now but aren’t, which means they aren’t generating as much revenue now for their shareholders as possible, which makes them a Bad Corporation.
And from a casual perspective, telling people their vote is pointless is (a) a way to show them you’re an asshole, (b) mostly pointless, and © quite possibly true regardless of how they vote.
You blame someone else. It’s definitely not your fault, it definitely cannot be that.
Your counterexample, “purchase a subscription”, actually undercuts the point you’re trying to make. The goal is honesty here. If you are renting or subscribing, you want to know that up front, in big text, using the simplest possible word. That word is “RENT”.
The issue about the lease business model being bad for society and consumers is also important, but it’s complicated and different from basic truth in advertising.
In the last six months, yes. It suggests short cuts that can create long delays. Shorter by miles, but often worse in the end.
Well yeah. They’re selling snake oil, and they better get as much money as they can now. That cash is going to dry up in a couple of years, and then where will they be. They’ll have to do real work again.
This should have been done decades ago, and I think law was strong enough decades ago to make it happen, it’s just that district attorneys didn’t want to piss off large businesses.
If a company shows on their website that they are selling you something, you as a buyer have the reasonable expectation that you’ve actually purchased it, and through that purchase, you can do all the things that you would with anything you own. When that’s not true, they haven’t actually sold you something. They’ve rented you something, and they know it, and that’s a deceptive business practice.
Which is to say, I’m happy to see some improvement on potential enforcement for false advertising, but the reality is I’m not too optimistic that people will seriously follow up on it because they already had a couple decades to do so.
He already got suspended. His weapon was suspended there, on this outside of the MRI machine.
The question, as always, is enforcement. It’s a great idea, and good for them for making it happen, and then we’ll find out if they were serious.
deleted by creator
That means you’re not down with OOP.
You’re talking about the wrong thing. The Mozilla Foundation is and has been acting a fool in recent years. Firefox, the open source program, is doing mostly OK. Obviously the two are closely connected, but they’re definitely not the same thing, and this matters when discussing policy.
Now now. If Mozilla is breaking the law here, of course someone would report them for it. There’s no need to shoot the messenger when everything was predictable.
Are there books in libraries? Yes, and the publishers don’t have to do a thing. And it is good for society. Similarly, can you fix an old car, even if the manufacturer went bankrupt? Of course you can.
We have precedent, my friend.