Well there are two ways to get people to do the right thing: carrot and stick. At the moment as you've pointed out, the carrot is in favour of reusable vapes anyway. So unless the carrot can be made even more enticing, it has to be the stick, i.e. bans.
Investors may well be interested in how well sequels are going to do. They may well take high player numbers as positive sentiment that is indicative that even new, unrelated titles will sell well.
The most convincing part is the other places in the constitution which set up the presidency in opposition to Officers of the United States. However, it's far from clear cut, as people definitely did think of and refer to the president as being an Officer of the United States.
This is only worth paying attention to if someone can say how they not only escaped the browser sandbox but then called native, privileged code. Javascript running in the browser cannot just do that.
And I’m not even sure how you could go about reusing disposables on a sanitary level. You can’t replace the mouth peices.
That would be the point of setting standards. What the other person is saying is that if you just have to take your old vape back to get a nice discount on your new disposable vape, lots of people would do it. And if there were standards to ensure even disposable vapes could be refilled and reused safely, then they could be put back into circulation instead of into landfill.
The mouth pieces needn't be replaceable either - they just need to be made to survive sanitisation.
They're so obviously unnecessary I'm surprised more places haven't banned them. They're also new, so conservatives should instinctively hate them.
We need a more generic approach to throwaway culture: the societal cost of disposing of things needs to be embedded in the price of those things. But in the case of vapes, I don't see how that can have a big impact: reusable vape pens only seem to be about twice the cost of a disposable, so anyone who is even remotely thinking rationally about price would be getting reusable ones.
The hiring process for their AR/VR division is also different than it is for the rest of the company - even when the general rule was to hire without a specific role in mind, that was not the case at Reality Labs. But yeah, the big issue is that you can't absorb 10,000 people into the larger organisation that easily even if they were all generalists.
That's not been the argument where I live for a generation ban, because smoking in public is already banned - so the argument is all about the health of the people who can no longer buy cigarettes.
Betting odds are not generally a reliable indicator of outcomes, because they are typically set based on the bets that have been received to ensure that, no matter what the outcome is, the house wins. While generally speaking, bettors will place bets according to what they think the most likely outcome is, making odds an OK proxy for crowd-sourcing opinions, there will be systematic bias which throws things off.
It's never going to go away. AI is like the "god of the gaps" - as more and more tasks can be performed by computers to the same or better level compared to humans, what exactly constitutes intelligence will shrink until we're saying, "sure, it can compose a symphony that people prefer to Mozart, and it can write plays that are preferred over Shakespeare, and paint better than van Gogh, but it can't nail references to the 1991 TV series Dinosaurs so can we really call it intelligent??"
But this isn't clear cut; I tend to hear that smokers are a net plus for a country's finances because of the taxes on cigarettes and due to dying younger, before costlier chronic disease treatments and social care are required.
So yes, you should be asking where to draw the line.
Sealioning is talked about far more often than it actually happens, because people often perceive both fundamental disagreement and lack of knowledge about something that they are extremely familiar with as bad faith.
I'm not interpreting you as believing it's an "absolute truth" I'm saying it doesn't seem like it would bear any relationship whatsoever. You are still saying that as a rule of thumb dog-lovers are less likely to respect people's (lack of) consent than cat-lovers. That's insane.
Let's be real about it: being a cat or dog person can tell you something about a person's personality and hence give you a hint about whether you'll get on with them. A green flag should first of all be universal, not dependent on the person considering it, and second it should actually be a reasonably accurate indicator.
Come on, I prefer cats but the reason people prefer dogs is because they do consent to the kinds of interaction dog-lovers want to have with their pets. If someone doesn't like cats because cats often don't want to be petted all the time it just means that person wants a pet who wants to be petted.
Also I do things to my cats without their consent all the time: I give them medicine they don't want, I use a vacuum cleaner, and I move them from places I don't want them to be. They are animals, not humans, and how I interact with them is not a model for how I interact with humans.
The wording of the law requires in general that the user be given a chance to decline information storage - "implied consent" is not an opportunity to decline. The exception is if the "information society service" is "explicitly requested by the user." Again there is no opportunity for implied consent because the request must be explicit.
The only argument I can see is to attempt to subdivide the service offered by a website and call "dark mode" its own service. That seems clearly not to be the meaning here.
It's worth saying that the ePrivacy directive binds legislatures; it's not the law that website owners have to follow. Member states wrote their own laws to comply with it, but obviously those laws are going to conform to the general principles.
This is not true. The Europen ePrivacy direction ("Cookie Law") specifically requires that cookies (and equivalents) which are not strictly necessary for the delivery of a requested service be explicitly consented to.
That means that cookies which store user preferences like dark mode require explicit consent, because you don't need to store that cookie to deliver your service. Even though there is no way to store a preference without a cookie (or equivalent) so selecting the option could be construed as consenting to the requirements for making that particular feature work, that is not the way the law is written.
Well there are two ways to get people to do the right thing: carrot and stick. At the moment as you've pointed out, the carrot is in favour of reusable vapes anyway. So unless the carrot can be made even more enticing, it has to be the stick, i.e. bans.