The problem is that anti-capitalist sentiment loves conflating these too, to rile up people against the reasonable idea of profit. Because apparently âprofitâ is stolen from the workers, nevermind that losses arenâ(TM)t taken from their paychecks.
So yeah, itâ(TM)s both extreme ends of this conversation that are trying to muddle up the terminology.

Two things need to happen:
Legislation to make cancelling subscriptions take less effort than signing up
Legislation to force banks to show you all recurring charges/preapprovals on your card (Netflix, Uber, etx), and allow you to cancel them from that side.

First one makes it harder for companies to be dicks about subscriptions. Second one helps you enforce that PLUS stop fradulent charges.
I don't mind a service like VAU if I can have control to roll back any approvals in less than 10 seconds.

I was now able to pick up the satire. Oh god that first bit was so realistic.

You seem to know for sure that this is Hondas ONLY investment into EV manufacturing? They stop here?
And are you sure the North American Honda market doesnâ(TM)t import from Japan or other countries?

You think a short-term blip caused by EVs dropping in price is âno marketâ? You think the fearmongering article about Ford was a truthful view of EV manufacturing as a long-term investment?

Read up on the Gartner Hype Cycle. Weâ(TM)ve just hit the Trough of Disillusionment. Honda is investing to stay relevant in the 2030â(TM)s. Anyone who doesnâ(TM)t shift will disappear by 2035.

Do you think the whole fee goes to Visa/Mastercard and the banks get nothing? Oh ye summer child. The banks use Visa/Mastercard to get their own cut of the pie. The fee still needs to be proportional to the value of the transaction.
And banks profit from interest rates on credit cards only when you don't pay off the full amount. All credit paid off by the due date is a "free loan" for the card holder, but the bank pays interest from day 1 on that line of credit.

And no, I don't think they are charities for covering fraud but I do understand it costs money, proportionally to the amount defrauded. So even if the FTC made sure that responsibility was included in the transaction fee, they'd have the brains to understand that fee should be proportional to the value of the purchase. Just like the EU has done. A CAPPED PERCENTAGE.
I'm not complaining about TILA, I'm saying your argument about the cost of a credit card transaction is disconnected from the value of the transaction is a really bad argument.

Yes, there average credit card interest rate is very high. But it only kicks in after the interest-free payment period which can be anything between 30-60 days. That's a "free" loan for the card holder, but the lender is paying interest (at a lower rate of course) from day 1. Someone has to pay for that loan too. And in this case it's merchants.

If the merchant doesn't want to accept credit cards, they don't have to. But for some reason, giving people means of spending is quite popular with merchants. It's also a lot safer and cheaper than cash handling, and often more convenient.

If a credit card enables you to buy something, or even buy something more expensive than originally intended, I'm sure the merchant is happy to accept that.
Ask your friendly TV seller: Should I buy the $500 TV for cash or the $600 TV with credit. I'm quite certain he'll bring out the card mashine.
That's the point for merchants: people's average spend goes up with credit cards. That's worth a lot, and apparently more than that %-fee.

But that's still not my main point, the point is that there's more to the cost of the transaction that just the transaction. Fraud, insurance and more which all scale.
An AMEX with a flat rate but a $100 purchase cap would be useless.

It doesn't matter if you didn't want it, but unless you're paying back the credit card company from your bank every night for the day's transaction, you ARE using their credit. And that's what matters.

My point still stands, the cost of offering credit for purchases which don't really give you much in the way of assets to claim back (like a house or a car) is not free, and fairly risky. It absolutely make sense to scale by the amount, instead of a flat rate. The cost of the transaction of bits is a very small slice of the whole cost.

What kind of crap gets upvoted here nowadays?

You seem to have forgotten all the other things credit cards do. Like giving you a credit. The cost of debt DOES scale by the amount. Or did you expect to have a mortgage with a "flat interest fee" because the cost of transacting loan doesn't scale with the size of the loan?
Not to mention credit cards have you covered in case of fraud and your card gets hit with transactions. If they're fradulent, they just get cancelled. You're not out of pocket a single dollar. But if your cash gets stolen, or your debit card gets used to drain your account? Yeah good luck. (Debit cards have improved in this sense, but will be a longer fight with your bank compared to credit.
What else? Insurance/consumer coverage for items you buy. The cost of that ALSO scales with the purchase. An expensive TV is expensive to replace on the credit card insurance.

Unless you pay a specific credit card fee or there's a cash rebate, you're best off paying with the credit card since the price is the same. But with the credit card you get the perks (see above), with cash or debit the merchant just takes your money. Let me repeat: if you don't use a credit card, you're still paying the same amount!

But that's not to say things can't improve:
The EU put in place a cap on the fee allowed at 0.3% for CC, 0.2% for debit. And we still have all of the things above. And some rare 1% cashback cards.
But to say that it doesn't make sense for the fee to scale with the amount just because the cost of the transaction is the same is just silly.

That's not how it works. As long as the AirTag is within range of the owner's iDevice, it will not trigger an alert.
So you're probably actually helping someone find an AirTag that's been lost or intentionally stuck on someone else.

They're also great for sticking in luggage so you can prove to the airport staff you KNOW they've lost your bag and you can show them exactly where it is.

AirTag brought traceable, easily controlled "tracking" to the masses, which is absolutely useless for actual stalking in most cases. And when it happens, the AirTag is linked to someone's AppleID and most probably their name, credit card details, billing address etc... So hugely self-incriminating that only idiots would try it.

And if that's the worst product ever made, I have a Ford Pinto to sell you. Among other things.

The AirTag chime is made to be easily findable, it's the whole point of the device.

Check out this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
It took me 5 seconds to find, and dispel your misinformation/FUD.

Did you even read the article?
This particular test flight took 24 minutes. Driving the same exact trip takes almost 2.5 hours because you need to take a ferry to get to Vancouver Island. Perfect use-case for electric planes: short but crosses difficult terrain or large swaths of water. This is why there's been huge interest in electrifying air travel in Norway, a country of difficult terrain and sparse population.

As for the financial viability, the are already flying these routes successfully and unless the batteries take up a majority of the passenger or cargo space, this might easily prove to be cheaper to fly than using traditional fuels.

So we should go back to Text-Only email for security reasons, and more information can be found in this totally safe PDF?

I don't think it's overreach, it's simply banning overreach on the local/municipal level. This is moving control of the issue to the HOA's, and thus the people.
Most laws that move the decision making closer to the people is good in my eyes.