This is just like Canada banning foreign investment in real estate. It admits there's a problem, data harvesting , homes as investments, but just solves a small part of the problem pertaining to "foreign bad guys" while ignoring the larger domestic issue.
All it does is make the government look like they did something without actually confronting the powerful interests that are causing the problem.
They actually have a somewhat open door policy for the weebs through JET. If your an American with a college degree than your welcome in Japan. There just aren't that many of them and those people also don't tend to have children.
There are a ton of people in the Philippines and S.E.A that would do anything to get to Japan even if the work is hard because the standard of living is so much better, much like Mexicans and central Americans wanting to come to the u.s. They would also be more willing to start families. Like the u.s. though they don't like brown people and only let a limited amount of them in legally.
Maybe eventually, it has to do with market share and if the service is a "core platform". Signal doesn't have enough market share to warrant it yet, even iMessage wasn't forced to since it's not that popular in EU. The law was mainly targeted at WhatsApp as that's THE messenger in the EU.
I get paying a decent wage but why ban tipping. Here in California there is no tipped wage difference and min wage is pretty high but I still tip whenever I get the chance because I earn a lot more than service workers and that $5 is worth more to them than me. I also appreciate that it goes directly to the workers instead of through the boss who will take god knows off the top. It should definitely not be required and discrete enough so that those who don't can't be shamed but banning it just hurts workers.
It wouldn't be too hard if you take it from the starting point of you need to prove that you need it, and that could basically just be answering the following questions
Maybe add in another exception for large families but station wagons filled that niche fine before SUVs came in. Either way these are very discrete and definable definitions.
We even already have the framework set up, semi trucks require different licensing and registration so that some random person can't just buy a vehicle that can easily kill a ton of people accidentally. The way trucks are headed that argument continues to get more applicable.
You aren't gonna get one with union labor in the u.s. and even if it was made by non union labor either the workers would be horribly underpaid and/or the quality would be lower.
It's not right to compare prices between countries with vastly different price levels. Are u.s. farmers doing the country a disservice by not selling pork for $0.50 a pound? No we accept that we make more and that we should pay our fellow Americans more so they can have the same quality of life we do. Ideally this solidarity should extend internationally but we should at least preserve it in the U.S.
China needs a $10,000 vehicle because that's all there middle class making $20,000 can afford. The u.s. doesn't, plenty of middle class Americans are buying new $30,000 cars, they just aren't buying electric ones, they're getting huge SUVs and pickup trucks. What the u.s. needs is to disincentivize or even ban people from buying large gas cars that don't need them.
Eventually if everyone's forced to get evs the used stock will turn into evs too and you'll get your $10,000 ev without destroying the American auto industry and millions of good paying union jobs.
I think you misunderstand what apples value proposition is, at least nowadays. The app store and not being able to use other app stores is not a reason people get iPhones. Maybe back when app stores were first created and the threat of malware was greater people might have considered it but nowadays no one cares. Even the idea of a unified ecosystem isn't as much a selling point any more because Google and Samsung offer similar seamless integrations with their accessories. You can see this in their marketing, they aren't focused on how all the apple products work together easily any more. In their marketing you can see what they think their value proposition is, and what was their big Superbowl ad this year, longer battery life ...
Apple at this point knows it doesn't have much of a value proposition for switching from android. So the only way they're gonna sell new phones is to get the kids who don't have a phone and convince the people who do have an iPhone to get a new one.
They convince the kids through their tried and true aesthetics and lifestyle marketing, this is about half there marketing these days. This along with iMessage in the U.S. and the general fear of being in the out group and obsession with brands that younger people have moved them towards iPhones.
They convince the current users with incremental upgrades, eg. Better battery life, better camera; and maintaining the walled garden and keeping exit costs high so they don't turn to androids for those incremental updates.
All this is to say that apple having a single app store isn't a sign of consumer sentiment, but a sign of apples desire to milk as much profits out of their current users as they can. Other app stores can only benefit the consumers, either they do get them for lower fees or don't because they put some value on the "ecosystem". From a company's perspective yes your right that they want to be able to do anything to their product they want, but the goal of regulation is to step in when the companies desires are at odds with the people or the consumers desire, this is one of those cases.
If anything this was worse under the old system. Making art previously costed a lot of money, you had to pay the artists for their time and money, and better artists cost more. So in the past that oil company could commission 100 top quality artists to make corporate propaganda while a person who cares for the environment but has no money could only make a drawing limited by their own personal technical artistic ability, which could be just stick figures.
This is why "high quality" consumerist and capitalist "art" and branding in the form of advertising is so abundant meanwhile anti-consumerist, anti-capitalist art is rarer, no one's paying to get it made.
Now any cause, regardless of money, can create at least mid art to get there message across. Those causes can also have way more people behind them then an oil company can reasonably hire
It's sort of like how the gun changed how power worked. Previously a king could use there resources to pay for a smaller army of well equipped highly trained knights to subjugate a group of people. Then when the gun came training and equipment didn't matter nearly as much and it became more of a numbers game, and to get those numbers rulers needed to give more power to the masses in order to be able to marshall them for their cause. Those rulers who didn't got overthrown in revolutions.
Why would real meaning and messages be harder to find, does AI generated art inherently have less meaning?
Let's say I wanted to convey the message that oil companies are destroying the environment so , throwing subtlety out the window, come up with an idea of "a vampiric oil baron draining mother nature of oil", does the picture that is generated from me putting that prompt into an AI generator have any less meaning then if I actually drew it myself?
For all the advances in AI it still lacks intentionality, and always will under these current models, that has to be supplied by the person in the form of a prompt. I'd say that intention is the source of messages and meaning in art. AI just allows people without technical abilities in art to express those intentions, feelings and messages.
This is taking the comment out of context, she said the federal minimum wage should be as high as $50 for places like the Bay area, she then went on to say that the national minimum wage should be raised to $20-25 based on affordability but that she's chiefly concerned with California.
That's what she was saying, everyone is taking her out of context. She was saying the federal minimum wage should be as high as $50 in places like the Bay area, she then went on to say that the national wage should be brought up to ~$20-25 and base it on affordability.
You can if the company is a non-profit like open AI. Basically when you take on investments for a company you declare what the goal/purpose of a company is, either to make money (for profit) or for some other nebulous cause (non-profit) eg. Ending hunger or saving humanity from AI. If an investor thinks you aren't following that goal and are pursuing some other goal then they can sue the company.
Sadly most companies are for profit so they can only be sued if they're trying to do something that doesn't optimally make money. So a fossil fuel company can't be sued for legally dumping poison into the air if it's the most cost efficient method, but they can be sued if they do a less cost efficient solution that would make air quality better because improving people's health isnt there goal, making money is.