Countries shouldn't aim to be competitive. They should aim to be more self-sufficient from the global economic system, so they can have decent lifestyles without increasing their population.
Or, more concisely: Countries should aim to be poor.
Not sure the right-wing nutballs behind this really understand that, since their proposal actually enforces it.
To be fair to the nutballs, their proposal will actually slow it down as compared to not limiting immigration. That is, from their nutball perspective the proposal is an improvement, just not a total solution. For a total solution, they need to go full right-wing nutball and also ban women from working so they'll stay home and have proper Swiss babies.
>Entrant: I don't have any "social media", but it doesn't matter because I applied for a regular visa like most of the world instead of using the ESTA program.
>Border Guard: Enjoy your visit.
Expect applicants for a regular visa to face similar requirements if they don't already.
Unlike iOS, Android is already open by design
That's not an argument they will be able to make once they block sideloading.
Except that they aren't blocking sideloading. With the planned changes you can still install apps via:
1. Other app stores. The apps will have to be signed by a registered developer account.
2. By one-click installation from a web site. The apps will have to be signed by a registered developer account.
3. By ADB. No registered developer account required.
And for the cases that require a registered developer account, that account can be anonymous and free as long as the number of installs is small.
>that makes you particularly suspicious!
That, or a 15-year-old Australian.
Heaven forbid, you might have to show them your Slashdot account!
That would be fun, actually. I'd have to give them slashdot and substack. They'd have no idea what either of them are.
Well, it would be fun until they denied me entry.
The challenge is this: If someone presents themselves at a nation's border and declares themselves a refugee from persecution that nation has two options -
1) Let them in, evaluate their situation and then based on that allow them to stay or tell them they have to go back - Which may lead thousands and thousands of economic migrants to declare themselves as "refugees" leading to years-long waits for a review.
2) Say "I don't care what's going to happen to you, go away" - Which may lead to legitimate refugees and their families being tortured and killed.
The third option can be about as bad, possibly worse:
Imprison them for months or years while you process their applications.
You can do this with "humane POW-style" imprisonment where they are comfortable but not free to leave, "typical relatively-humane criminal-prison style" accommodations that re decidedly uncomfortable but decidedly better than back home if they are truly non-economic refugees, or "you think it's bad at home, try this on for size and when you get sick of it, beg us to send you back home" inhumane accommodations where about the only thing they are (mostly) guaranteed is that they won't be killed or die of malnutrition or poor medical treatment.
I'm sure there are a number of hostile-to-immigrant people in the USA that will look at that last one and say "great idea!" It's not, it's a horrible idea.
Americans are reaping what Trump has sown, but as usual, he's engaging in denial.
FTFY
This is a gaslighting that he'll probably largely get away with, since most Americans -- especially his voter base -- have little contact with tourism or people from other countries.
His ongoing attempts to gaslight them over grocery prices, though, that one's going to be tougher. I'm surprised he's trying that. I mean, he's dumb, sure, and insulated from truth, but surely someone around him is smart enough and clueful enough to tell him that it would be better to sell it as a period of unfortunate but necessary pain on the way to long-lasting economic revival and stability. His base would eat that up, but even his diehard supporters are having a hard time reconciling "grocery prices are down!" with their own grocery bills, and he just keeps repeating it. He can cherry-pick specific item prices or gush about the lower-price of a (conveniently scaled-back) Thanksgiving dinner basket all he wants but people who actually buy groceries (such an old-timey word! <eyeroll/>) can see the truth during every weekly trip to the store.
Republicans equate being pro-market with being pro-big-business-agenda. The assumption is that anything that is good for big business is good for the market and therefore good for consumers.
So in the Republican framing, anti-trust, since is interferes with what big business wants to do, is *necessarily* anti-market and bad for consumers, which if you accept their axioms would have to be true, even though what big business wants to do is use its economic scale and political clout to consolidate, evade competition, and lock in consumers.
That isn't economics. It's religion. And when religious dogmas are challenge, you call the people challenging them the devil -- or in current political lingo, "terrorists". A "terrorist" in that sense doesn't have to commit any actual act of terrorism. He just has to be a heathen.
Forget the kids, they don't vote so they can be safely trod upon.
I care about the kids, and I don't think this is treading on them, I think it's pushing them to have IRL relationships, and that's a good thing. I say that as a nerd who had few friends when I was a teen (in the 80s), but even normal, social kids today have far fewer real friendships and many of the geeky kids like I was now have none at all.
We're a social species, we need and crave socialization, but social media is to real relationships like drugs are to the normal joys of life; a false but massively-amped substitute for the real thing, addictive and harmful. It's perfectly possible to get high or drunk from time to time and still enjoy real life, but you have to use the artificial happiness in moderation and control. There are really good reasons why we try to keep kids away from drugs and alcohol, and keep adults away from the really powerful and addictive stuff, and get them into treatment when they get hooked (well, in the US we mostly just put them in prison, but some parts of the world are getting smarter and focusing on treatment).
The same logic applies to social media. We need to figure out how to tame its effects on adults, especially those who are for some reason especially vulnerable and get very warped by it. IMO, it makes perfect sense to just try to keep kids off of it entirely, especially since we don't really understand it yet.
Drinking age is a whole other cattle of fish, and it gas more to do with colture + tradition than anything so let's not start down that rathole
True. If we were to make the decision based on medical and scientific bases, the drinking age would be 25.
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.
The "green in my wallet" demands tender care
>I would cooperate with law enforcement if they're investigating serious (violent) crime.
The choice to cooperate or not should be yours, not the camera vendor's.
If money can't buy happiness, I guess you'll just have to rent it.
