Turn off AC comments again you cryptofucks, 99.9% of AC posts are fucking garbage

Unless you're an Uyghur Muslim you probably won't be enslaved there, you can put your money into foreign banks and then you will still have benefit unless the risk catches up to you.

Capitalism inherently means literally only one thing, capital controls the means of production. Who has the capital? The wealthy. Who therefore has the right to control? Yeah. That's right, the wealthy. Capitalism IS about the rights of the wealthy.

Capitalism is about control of PRODUCTION, not about control of stuff you bought. That is orthogonal to capitalism. You have to have the right to own property for capitalism to exist but that doesn't give you the right to do whatever you want with it.

Rent seeking is orthogonal to capitalism as well, because it's not about production. Hell, it's barely even about ownership, since you can sublet.

TL;DR: All the stuff you think is capitalism is really about a specific form of capitalism with other things added on. Capitalism is NOT inherently about free MARKETS. You can have mods on capitalism to try to make it make the freest possible markets, but they aren't the soul of capitalism. Rich people controlling stuff is.

This is ignorant. There are lots of reasons why consumers would have to buy a product which is hard to repair. For example there's no credible alternative, use of a specific product is all that's supported, it's mandated by an employer, the manufacturer has driven competing manufacturers out of business, etc. This is why we have antitrust and warranty laws.

The very essence of capitalism is that those who control the capital control the means of production. Everything else you think is necessarily part of capitalism isn't except for private property ownership, as you can't have capitalism without that. The right to purchase a competing product means absolutely nothing when there is no competing product, when a specific product can be mandated, when the alternate products cannot reasonably be maintained or there are deliberate incompatibilities, etc etc. It's really truly sad how few people around here know what capitalism is, means, and does.

This is the problem right here. Why is Google not considered an accessory? Google received consideration to disseminate it and the either employed no or insufficient oversight. This is not simply user-provided content which was posted without their cooperation.

In the US it primarily works the other way around, the automakers intervene in the government by having their lawyers write legislation and then paying congresscreeps to sponsor it. That's how we got the regulatory landscape we have with e.g. the chicken tax, and the differing standards for light trucks.

Government intervention in the USA is kind to the big 3 automakers and primarily fucks over consumers, like how California is now making owners of heavy diesel RVs get smog tests every year even though their contribution to emissions is barely measurable. It costs each owner $250 to get the test and another $35 or so in filing fees to accomplish... fuck all. Plus it creates an additional trip which starts with idling for at least fifteen minutes (or up to half an hour, depending on the ambient temperature) so the wet sleeved diesel engine can come up to temp before I set off. My neighbors must really enjoy that. Also then there's the fact that DPFs reduce soot but a) increase the production of PM2.5 soot and b) increase CO2 emissions. DEF+SCR good (except that the DEF injection systems are typically pathetically fragile) but DPF is bad but still mandated.

There is no reason why applications which choose to implement both types of interfaces can't do so. There's also no reason why users should be limited to one type of interface or the other. Both things coexist completely peacefully on Android. You can connect a mouse to your tablet (or even phone) and treat it like a desktop system with shitty storage (practically all phones, it takes a lot of power to have fast storage.)

The primary use case for tablet computers in olden times was data entry and acquisition, for example the military used their magnesium-case gridpads to do inventory.

It seems exceptionally weird that people have started writing as though "AI"'s needs are just axiomatic; and that the size of other things, like revenue or suckers with available capital, must be the problem.

The fact that you want something that costs more than you have isn't normally described as a 'funding gap'; it's just you having expensive tastes that you can't afford. Why are talking about there being X trillion in 'demand' when, in fact, there's only X trillion in unfunded hype because nobody has slapped a shock collar on Altman yet?

The biggest problem with Apple for users probably isn't any of their anticompetitive shit, but rather their bifurcated OS. Software which could be sold on both platforms is commonly only on one or the other. Tablets have enough screen and enough power to do real PC jobs but are prohibited from doing them because Apple wants to sell you both an iPad and a Macintosh. Android-based tablets can run emulators to get around these problems, or run full apps which can run on ARM Linux in Termux or another solution. TBF Google seems to have Apple envy and is aiming to lock down their systems more and not less so maybe they will throw away this advantage.

McKinsey is already involved. It's not really a classic Saudi project if it doesn't combine the dodgiest western white collar people and services money can buy with a healthy dollop of slave labor.

It looks weirdly like some sort of baby transport accessory. Maybe perfect for iphone air users hoping that a warm, soothing, environment conducive to frequent suckling will help their purchase recover developmentally normal weight?

Do they also provide build tools and allow customers to build and install their own images?

You have to have punishments to stop the people who are stopped by the threat of them. Those people do exist. We don't think about them much because the existing deterrents work just fine on them.

But you also shouldn't waste your time either believing that they will deter everyone, nor that stronger punishments will deter statistically more people. There are always those who think they won't get caught, and those who don't care.

Somehow authoritarians always forget the carrot. The stick isn't invalid, it just isn't a complete solution, and you shouldn't be rushing to apply it in all situations.

What's stopping you? There's definitely people doing this right now. Around a quarter of the continental US is BLM land. Last I looked pig tags were free.

Even when you try to keep the implementation fairly practical just deciding that there should be a city somewhere without any historical logic for the presence of a city is a strategy with a pretty dubious success rate. Doesn't fail every time; but unless you get lucky and manage to find an attractive chunk of real estate that was missing nothing but critical mass; or you have a very specific purpose in mind like 'new administrative center without restive urban population' that allows you to just tell the civil service to live there unless they like 8 hour commutes and declare victory your odds aren't good.

In this case the Saudis started with that downer; picked a particularly grim environment, likely to get at least a couple of degrees grimmer in the comparatively near future, and treated aggressive deviations from practicality as a virtue. There's probably something they could have done to doom the plan harder; but I'm not sure offhand what it would have been.