Last I checked, Apple wanted me to pay something close to 100â per year to publish an app on their store. My app is free, does not generate revenue and has a small user base (a few hundred) so I can't do that. Therefore it is only on the Google store, which did ask me for a one time fee of I think 45â, which I also found upsetting but not nearly as much.

Ah but see there is one technically correct answer to that question: casual sex is actually harmless as long as it's consensual and you use protection correctly. The fact that some people do not like that very simple fact does not change it. It's their problem.

And again I caution you (I assume it's the same AC) against concepts like "objective science". Science cannot be objective, it is made by humans for humans. Evolution is not more "scientifically proven" or "objective science" than the fact that consensual protected sex is harmless. You can spend time trying to find a qualitative difference why one is more correct than the other, but you will fail to find a valid one. As it turns out, some people will tell you that believing in evolution is harmful and will result in you going to "hell", whatever that is.

Perhaps it would be easier if you shared what you think makes sexual education qualitatively less valid than say teaching the theory of evolution. And I mean a concrete example.

Also, as someone whose job sometimes involves writing actual proofs, I caution you against putting these words "scientifically proven" together. That's not what the scientific method is about, and that's not what it does. Otherwise we wouldn't have needed to adjust the theory of evolution over time to explain things it didn't explain before, which we most certainly have.

Does that logic extend to other topics or is that treatment reserved to sexuality? What about evolution? Should parents decide what their children are exposed to on that topic as well? Is there a list of topics for which bigotry is allowed to trump reality? Bigotry is still bigotry even when dressed up as morality.

I mean the US is the one western rich country with high poverty, and also one with the fewest worker protections (including minimum salary). There are variations, for example Germany didn't have a national minimum salary until recently but they were still minimum salaries per profession, negotiated and enshrined in collective agreements. I don't know why some people are so intent on maintaining aspects of US law and society that ensure poverty and precariousness but it does not signal the best of intentions. Seriously it's weird, most other rich countries are much better to live in unless you're in the top 10%. Either you think only the 10% are worthy of a decent life and stfu, or have a look at the rest of the world and revisit your opinions once they are better informed.

The government is supposed to act for the benefit of the population, including and especially the poorest since they need it the most, it's doing that with that minimum wage, what's wrong with that?

Because public services are generally good for the public. You don't seem to have a problem with Uber and Lyft using public roads though, so you do draw the line somewhere, some level of public service is acceptable to you. What makes public roads acceptable to you but not public ride sharing?

It's even worse than that. Uber has established market presence for years and still struggles to be profitable. The only way to make this work is to first become a monopoly or cartel then raise all prices.

Because a minimum wage has just been voted.

That says a lot about you and how you approach that debate though. The idea is simple and it is this: Nobody is forced to comply to EU regulations, but nobody is entitled to the money of EU consumers. You can't have one without the other though, make your choice.

Yes, my point is that it would be naive to expect that most managers are good. So maybe we should not give them too much power. Or maybe just do away with them, and favour things like flat hierarchy or at least giving people more independence.

A manager is often the problematic person

Regardless of individual preferences, employers who give the choice of where to work are more attractive than employers who do not give that choice, all other things being equal. If you disagree with that, please show me those people who'd rather be coerced than free.

If a watermark is needed to distinguish whether it's a fake or not, then these businesses were not respectable to begin with.

ToS are not law, and are actually subject to the law. Agreed-to ToS can be invalid if against the law, although in practice law enforcement often doesn't care as long as nobody complains.