I wouldn't call plant-based meat alternatives "healthy" unless your idea of healthy is dying of salt poisoning.
Meat is delicious, but a vegan diet is perfectly healthy.
Also, our ancestors have been eating meat for thousands of years with no effect on the weather
That's a really big claim. You have not done the research or looked at the evidence to back it up. It's something you pulled out of your ass. Don't do that.
It is possible that our ancestors eating meat had an effect on the weather.
The report suggests measures such as a universal basic income, taxes on meat and subsidies for healthy, plant-based foods.
Seems to depend on location. In my home city in Europe, it was 3-4 times a day, even shortly after the war.
But that was before mailmen had to earn $300k in salary and benefits.
Numbers mean nothing once enough inflation is involved. But back in those same days, a mailman could support a family on his salary. Not a luxury life for sure, but enough to rent a place and put food on the table. Women working was still a somewhat new thing.
Yes, this stuff is moving digital as well. At different speeds in different countries.
Social media has become a toxic dump. If you wouldn't allow children to play in waste effluent from a 1960s nuclear power plant, then you shouldn't allow them to play in the social media that's out there. Because, frankly, of the two, plutonium is safer.
I do, however, contend that this is a perfectly fixable problem. There is no reason why social media couldn't be safe. USENET was never this bad. Hell, Slashdot at its worst was never as bad as Facebook at its best. And Kuro5hin was miles better than X. Had a better name, too. The reason it's bad is that politicians get a lot of kickbacks from the companies and the advertisers, plus a lot of free exposure to millions. Politicians would do ANYTHING for publicity.
I would therefore contend that Australia is fixing the wrong problem. Brain-damaging material on Facebook doesn't magically become less brain-damaging because kids have to work harder to get brain damage. Nor are adults mystically immune. If you took the planet's IQ today and compared it to what it was in the early 1990s, I'm convinced the global average would have dropped 30 points. Australia is, however, at least acknowledging that a problem exists. They just haven't identified the right one. I'll give them participation points. The rest of the globe, not so much.
And we all know that won't happen.
The thing with fines is that all the people ACTIVELY involved have interests that don't align with the public and taxpayers.
The shops are ok with fines if they happen rarely and in manageable amounts. Then they can just factor them in as costs of doing business.
The inspectors need occasional fines to justify their existance. So, counter-intuitively, they have absolutely no interest in the businesses they inspect to actually be compliant. Just compliant enough that the non-compliance doesn't make more headlines than their fines. So they'll come now and then, but not so often that the business actually feels pressured into changing things.
You misunderstand wealth.
Most wealth of the filthy rich is in assets. Musk OWNS stuff that is worth X billions. That doesn't mean he as 140 mio. in cash sitting in his bottom drawer.
Moreoever, much of the spending the filthy rich do is done on debt. They put up their wealth as a collateral and buy stuff with other people's (the banks) money. There's some tax trickery with this the exact details I forgot about.
So yes, coughing up $140 mio. is at least a nuissance, even if on paper it's a rounding error.
The actual story that got buried is that the filthy rich are now in full-blown "I rule the world" mode when their reaction to a fee is not "sorry, we fucked up, won't happen again", but "let's get rid of those rules, they bother me".
If they cared, they could force price compliance automatically using e-paper tags. The fact they don't deploy modern solutions to a known issue, means they don't want to solve it.
These automated tags are about $15-$20 each. If you buy a million you can probably get them for $10, but still. Oh yes, and their stated lifetime is 5 years. And you STILL need an employee to walk around updating because it's done via NFC.
In many cases, there are modern tech solutions, but pen-and-paper is still cheaper, easier and more reliable.
It's not necessarily malice. What I mean is: They are certainly malicious, but maybe not in this.
Now THAT is a rare example of an actually smart law.
No government funds needed to enforce the policy, while the stores have an incentive to post the right prices. Why the max $5 though?
Passwords are implemented as a result of insecurity.
