Isn't before the price is set in stone the time to make a big deal out of it? Like you said, they probably leaked it to gauge the response. We should mock it for the absurdity that it is so they know they're way off the mark before it comes out.
That is, assume the price is something we want changed. Honestly, I don't really. I want this to flop. We need fewer Microsoft products out there, not more. I want people on Linux powered devices, so we get more support for Linux software.
It also requires perfectly rational actors with perfect information. If they can suppress information about competition or manipulate you to have loyalty then it doesn't work, and both of these happen constantly.
What the other comment said is correct. It alone doesn't show they're doing fine. They could instead have a massive decrease in imports, and their export surplus would increase, but it'd suck because no one actually cares about that. I don't get upset when I go to the grocery store and leave with less money than when I entered, because I got goods of similar value with that money.
If their total exports went up, then that indicates they're doing well.
OK, my answer to this was going to be "no" but these actually look cool. I hate those modern ones the kids wear. They're ugly (in my opinion), expensive, and made out of cheap materials. These have a similar vibe, but like they're made by someone who understand style, instead of thinking something that stands out is style. Looking at the review pictures though, they definitely do T work for everyone. In particular, they look best with people with darker hair/skin. The blonde pale women I think it looks weird on.
I'm a 31 year old man though. Don't take my opinion on style.
Something I learned is that I stopped losing my sunglasses when they cost a fair amount. When I purchase cheap ones and don't give a shit, they break or are lost, and end up costing more. When I got nicer ones I never lost or broke them. Just a one time payment.
Now I wear prescription glasses (I did wear contacts), so they're both expensive and I can't live without them. Obviously losing or breaking them isn't something that happens now.
Yeah, this is legitimately an amazing ad, though Google may bot want it because they probably make more money off your data than you buying the device.
The thing is we can gather that solar energy from other locations too. We can harvest wind and hydro, which are just solar power in a different form. We can gather solar energy that's deposited off of our site in this way.
I've tried using my name in email/accounts for decades and never got it. I have a name so common people think I'm making it up when I tell them. It also makes me not too worried about posting it online, because even if you knew it and my location you still probably couldn't find the right person.
You're literally on a thread about evidence of tampering with the video. There's a section if the video that's missing. If that isn't evidence of them covering something up I don't know what is. Do you not see it because you don't want to or do you actually not think that shows there's something going on?
I would assume it's to make the metadata seem more reasonable, so people pay less attention to the cut. 'The "perfectly innocent" act of "touching it up" is the reason the metadata says what it does, not because we removed part of it. Don't look any closer!'
I don't know if you understand what protectionism is. Protectionism is favoring domestic production over foreign. I don't think it has anything to do with your comment. The way you're using it seems to be just not holding them accountable. That's just capitalism though. They buy the legislators who create the justice system.
I agree larger corporations should face more scrutiny or liability. I've never seen a Libertarian express this opinion though. The standard libertarian position is: "The larger company earned its money and should be free to spend it how they wish, including molding the system to its desires. The Market decided they're the most capable after all."
I haven't seen those originals disappear...
It happens. You probably wouldn't notice it, but it's constantly going on. It's particularly bad for niche product. Things like charging cables or whatever, the market is large enough to support multiple products, and there's only so far Amazon is willing to cut it and those are cost so little for anyone to make.
Neither should be the end goal, the goal should be leaving people alone so they can pursue happiness on their own.
A goal has to be something measurable, but sure. Yeah. That's basically what I said. Improve lives (meaning happiness). That essentially implies freedom to persue what you want. I don't know what else it could mean. However, it also need to include companies leaving people alone. The government isn't the only source of authority influencing peoples lives, and we need a government to protect them.
Obviously, I haven't dealt in specifics at all and I represented it in fairly extreme language to make a point. The idea I'm trying to convey is that I think less is more absolutely applies to the government, and we should strive to simplify it to where it's transparent enough that the average person actually understands what government does.
I largely agree, but I think the key point of why anarchism (aka, removing hierarchy, not no government) is the way I went is because, with hierarchy, those with resources will always buy an advantage. We need a government that actually represents the people, which means it needs to be made of the people, not lifelong legislators. Some of that should be direct democracy where it can be, but rotating representatives chosen from regular people who serve temporary terms, so they can't gather power, is ideal. As long as capital controls the government then capitalists will buy the system, and libertarians generally (not saying you specifically) argue this is part of the design and good, because they proved "they know best."
I have serious practical concerns with anarchism, but that is certainly the ideal.
You should have serious practical concerns with everything. My practical concerns with libertarianism is what led me to social anarchism. For example:
Consumer protections should largely be unnecessary if the market is sufficiently competitive, and ending protectionism should provide that...
Why? Why would ending protectionism necessarily demand competition? Without government stepping in, why wouldn't the largest companies create barriers that prevent competition? They can user their capital to undercut competitors until they can't remain solvent, then increase prices far above cost. They can also buy out competitors before they are real competition. They can use their market dominance to demand suppliers to show their product more prominently, or to only show their product.
There are far too many ways the dominant company can curtail competition, and we've seen it played out many times even with our current system that Libertarians want to remove the guardrails from. For example, items listed on Amazon that sell moderately well, Amazon creates knockoffs for. They then sell them at a cheaper price under the "Amazon Basic" name until the original is gone, and then they increase prices. This is what the free market looks like.
This is the kind of thing that led me to social anarchism. People are the important thing, not companies. We need a government that's empowered to protect people, but that let's people do what they want (assuming they don't hurt other people). Ideally also we remove hierarchy from the companies and have them owned by employees or the people also. Letting them treat humans as a human resource (which is crazy that HR can be called that and people don't see a problem) is the issue. Improving the lives of people should be the end goal, not profit.
I am a bit left of center in the US and pretty centrist on a global scale, and I lean fairly libertarian. I'm left of most libertarian candidates in the US, supporting things like UBI as an alternative to welfare programs. So I think I have a decent perspective on what's left and right.
I started at your position a long time ago, when I was a teenager. I realized libertarians are full of shit, and eventually discovered a better descriptor of my beliefs was anarchist (in particular, social anarchist). I think the government shouldn't be telling people how to live or what they can or can't do. It should be there to protect people (emphasis; not corporations).
Libertarians (in the US at least) are really just anarcho-capitalists. They want freedom for businesses, but usually at the expense of freedom for people. They don't want protection for people from exploitation. They want businesses with enough money to be able to exert their authority as far as possible, to the extent of blocking competition and effectively creating slaves. (They'll argue they don't agree with slavery, but what's the difference between your employer owning your ability to live and slavery?)
It depends on where you draw the line for "the center." I'd agree it's leftist for America, but it's center-left on a global scale. You'll usually get some push back if you promote true leftist politics. Usually more agreement than dissent, but still some.
It's correct. If you choose to answer questions, you should tell the truth. That should be preceded, in bold, "don't fucking answer questions! If the police talk to you, shut the fuck up."
Buy indie games that are actually trying to make good games and do cool things though.