Truth in advertisement would go such a long way to solve so many different problems the modern world has.

Let's assume that they are right, because why wouldn't they? It does make sense that muscles grown in a lab are not identical to muscles constantly used by the animal. That there's more to biology than cell division. We already know that what the animal eats has an effect on the taste of its meat. Of course there's a difference if it never ate anything and isn't actually an animal.

And then there's the idiots who tried to turn us all into vegetarians by labelling their non-meat products as "steaks" or "burgers" or whatever. You know, instead of using proper names that are not intentionally confusing. Many of us tried - intentionally or otherwise - these "meat replacement" products and found out that they taste nothing like the real thing and at least half of them are simply disgusting. Of course we're now more careful with meat alternatives.

And the problem with venture capital is that it'll go elsewhere if you are just moderately successul, because that doesn't cut it. They want their investments to be the next Google or Facebook.

So thanks to AI, Spotify has essentially eliminated itself as a platform for small, niche artists.

Says who that a company 'dumps externalities' on us? It pays for disposing of the clothes.

How about your old clothes, you are throwing it away, you are paying for the trash to be collected, are you dumping externalities? You are PAYING for this to be disposed of, so does a company, everything else is authoritarian nonsense.

what else does it mean? First of all just dealing with it is resource intensive and companies already do. Secondly why do you expect people to behave in a certain way just because you introduce some authoritarian law? You SHOULD expect them to solve the problem in a way that makes sense for them. If it made sense to donate the clothes they would have. There are already outlets, where older unsold clothes is shipped to be sold at a lower price. Once nobody buys stuff there, it has to be disposed of, it requires space and handling, it oozes money by just sitting there idly. The companies will invent a mechanism to achieve the same result as happens now, it will be more expensive, that is all. People route around the damage caused by governments every dat.

the hell you say. Are you breathing the air? Eating the food? Drinking the water? Do you need clothes, a house, a car, petrol, entertainment? You are a walking talking externality. Again, people already pay for disposing of stuff, if the price does not cover something, that is a different question, but that is not the point of my comment. Lets say the clothing company does cover the costs of disposal, what business is it of anyone that they make 10,000 tons of clothes and then end up disposing of 700 tons of it because it doesn't sell? Why is the same logic not applied to everything, how about a crop that is not collected and ends up being ploughed back into the field? Why are you throwing trash away? As to donating clothes - a company should be within its RIGHT to destroy products it did not sell or donate, whatever makes more sense for them, they created the stuff.

"fucking idiot", says a moron who cannot read a paragraph. I talked about disposal costs, there are always costs for disposing of stuff, that is not the point of the comment. To tell people they cannot make things and then destroy things (and dispose with costs) is authoritarian nonsense.

So this is private property and it was created with private money, jobs were paid for, taxes were paid, these THINGS belong to the people (company) who created it. None of it is government's business how they want to use it but now government says: these things you own, you cannot destroy it, you must keep it? For how long do these things need to be stored and where, who is going to be paying to store it?

It is the same thing is the government came to your house and said: you cannot throw away this garbage, though you paid for it, you paid the taxes, you don't need it. Now you must keep it in your house even though you paid the waste disposal fees.

This entire thing is as insane as anything any government does on any given day.

I imagine a company can run a 'sale' of these unsold items for a price of 1 cent per ton of goods sold, 'sell' it to a company that will then dispose of it. Freaking nuts, but it is not even the inconvenience of this that is bothersome, it is the fact that people think it is perfectly acceptable to tell anyone what to do with their own THINGS they made, their property they made.

If the question is how the items are destroyed, some environmental impacts, that would be one thing (some costs added to disposing of THINGS, there are always costs). But fundamentally this is so much worse, it is some authority commanding your life in a way that shouldn't be possible.

Sure. But I don't have to make it any easier for Zuck, right?

Names

Face recognition is the one feature I want in a wearable. I have a great memory for faces and a shit memory for names. I can look at a crowded room and spot the three people I know. I couldn't for the life of me tell their names unless they are close friends.

If I could get a tech device telling me just their names, I would be happy. I don't need their FB profile or such. I don't need the names of people I don't know.

That said, I'd rather go without than having Facebook handle that. Nope, you can fuck right off, Zuckerberg.

Oh, not sure. The whole cryptocurrency scene routinely throws around millions.

But yeah, UK.

In the US you would probably give it back, then sue them for twice the amount due to the "emotional distress" of thinking you were rich and then having that shattered.

Sorry, what? A NEW analysis? A solid decade in this? Took them a while, didn't it?

But in this case it was sent to the correct recipient, and it was sent explicitly as a gift. Assuming the prize amounts were not published in advance, there's no way I can KNOW that it was in error. I might assume, believe, think, etc. - but not KNOW.

Yes, nitpicking. But law is essentially all nitpicking.

Why? They called it a gift, didn't they?

This option is so often overlooked, it's almost comical.

Same in most political debates. You are strongly pushed to take a side. The option "both sides are full of shit" is often ignored.