101–110 of 175 posts
This is a great step. Subscriptions errode first sale protections by subscription-gating physical objects, allowing OEMs a work-around to first-sale doctrine. If you buy something, you should own it, and be able to fix it, scrap it, re-sell it, whatever you want. It's interesting NJ included self-driving in the subscription ban. These require significant overhead in compute, engineering resources and greatly impact s…
This is a great step. Subscriptions errode first sale protections by subscription-gating physical objects, allowing OEMs a work-around to first-sale doctrine. If you buy something, you should own it, and be able to fix it, scrap it, re-sell it, whatever you want. It's interesting NJ included self-driving in the subscription ban. These require significant overhead in compute, engineering resources and greatly impact s…
The economics behind one-time vs subscription pricing is very far removed from the responsibility of a New Jersey bureaucrat. Let Ford and BMW and Tesla figure it out for themselves. If people really do hate it as much as the article and the lawmakers seem to suggest, they will simply not buy it.
I'm not concluding my opinion on either side of this right now. I just am lately skeptical of the number of laws and movements we have that are justified "because I agree with this particular outcome" but aren't sustainable principles to run a society off of (without constantly having to create exceptions). Even if I like that I'm not being "gouged" in NJ, is the principle behind this right?
Is the principle, "you shouldn't be charged for something that a company has already built and put in the product"? Or "we don't like paying for something that seems like you should physically have control over"?
If it's the first one, how does this not apply to subscription models in general? Tons of companies have stuff they've already built and put in what the customer could conceivably already access without charge. Printer ink, locked CPU cores, how about private areas of venues that you have to pay extra to access? Software that a company has already developed but doesn't "cost them anything" to keep offering to you aside from a login barrier. First class seats on airplanes. Doesn't this all follow the same principle?
On the second principle, why is this specially deserving of interference / protection in what customers are willing to pay or tolerate? Why don't they pass a law about not being "gouged" on extra storage on my iPhone costing $100 more? The memory is already in there, why should I be forced to pay extra to unlock it? (or similar analogy)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That doesn’t help when you ask if someone is a likely voter and they say no because of who’s running. Granted it doesn’t say it’s asking likely voters, but somehow they got 95% of responses say they are registered voters when only 50% of Americans are registered voters. (Page 8) https://www.monmouth.edu/polling-institute/documents/monmout...
> somehow they got 95% of responses say they are registered voters That's 95% of people who are old enough to respond to the poll (under 18 are excluded without reporting) and don't hang up. I don't find it strange that people who aren't registered to vote hang up without responding to the poll.
So what's the fundamental principle here, and why does it only apply to car companies? Just because you can make a law that way, it follows a principle you respect? I'm not concluding my opinion on either side of this right now. I just am lately skeptical of the number of laws and movements we have that are justified "because I agree with this particular outcome" but aren't sustainable principles to run a society off…
So what's the fundamental principle here, and why does it only apply to car companies? Just because you can make a law that way, it follows a principle you respect? I'm not concluding my opinion on either side of this right now. I just am lately skeptical of the number of laws and movements we have that are justified "because I agree with this particular outcome" but aren't sustainable principles to run a society off…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Many congressional elections are unposed due to extreme gerrymandering this zeroes out voters from that party in a nationwide count. Going alphabetically Alabama 2 of 7 races without Democratic candidates which means Democratic voters in those districts will obviously not vote for a Democrat. https://ballotpedia.org/United_States_House_of_Representativ...
This is polling data. You have to read the question. In this CNBC poll[1], the question was "which party do you want to control Congress?" and the Republicans came out ahead. In this[2] Harvard poll, the question was "would you be more likely to vote for a Republican or a Democrat in the midterm" and it was a 50/50 tie. Generally, I think OP's conclusion is correct. There is a tendency in this bubble to assume that t…
The 2016 presidential election was R 62,984,828 to D 65,853,514 in votes with 55.7% turnout of registered voters. But in that exact same election the house votes went 63,182,073 R vs 61,765,832 D. In other words the R house got +200 thousand votes and D lost over 4 million votes in the house.
That kind of advantage is common in recent elections. They lost in 2020 at R 72,760,036 vs D 77,529,619 in the house, but was still much better for them than the presidential election at R 74,216,154 vs D 81,268,92.
People sure seem to love government overreach when they think it works in their favor. The economics behind one-time vs subscription pricing is very far removed from the responsibility of a New Jersey bureaucrat. Let Ford and BMW and Tesla figure it out for themselves. If people really do hate it as much as the article and the lawmakers seem to suggest, they will simply not buy it.
People sure seem to love government overreach when they think it works in their favor. The economics behind one-time vs subscription pricing is very far removed from the responsibility of a New Jersey bureaucrat. Let Ford and BMW and Tesla figure it out for themselves. If people really do hate it as much as the article and the lawmakers seem to suggest, they will simply not buy it.
Your first sentence is interesting. If government represents the will of the people then it would not be overreach.