"Don't punish behavior you want to see."
I'm not saying they should get a cookie because they joined the cause, but as long as they stay in line, support them in order to hold the line.
bss03
joined 2 years ago
Nah this absolutely make no sense to anyone who’s been alive for more than a day.
It makes sense to me. I have been alive in excess of 10k days.
its straigh up impossible to enforce whatever garbage this “proposal” is.
Not true, I provided a mechanism for enforcement. We investigate perjury all the time, and the test for "unpaid" would be significantly similar.
Nah that’s silly and how would that even be enforced? “Unpaind word of mouth” - you going to interrogate people how they know something?
You would investigate if there's a complaint or other probable cause, just like every other crime. Some people will get away with breaking the law, maybe, but as long as the law can be enforced effectively but not arbitrarily it's not a bad law on enforcement grounds.
I am on record elsewhere stating that I believe there are better approaches than banning advertisement wholesale, yes. But, I'm not going to let the better be the enemy of the good while I'm living in the bad. An improvement of the status quo, even if it might be in the "wrong direction" is still an improvement.
My switch is in the closet, so no. But, if I did currently play switch games, yeah.
I dislike the pricing, but I feel like it's probably fair. I like comparing $price/hr-entertainment vs. going to the movies. I think for most games, it will still be better value. But, I can understand using other metrics. A dropout.tv subscription is only 6.99/mo and there's at least a couple hours of new stuff being added to that each month, I think.
Almost anything that can be remotely subjective ("best", "better", "more effective", etc.) gets pushed into the "puffery" exception of (US) truth-in-advertising laws.
Even very objective claims that are untrue can be upheld, if they are (e.g.) based on an internal study. Even if there's a better sourced, more repeated study with stronger claims (in the other direction) that is widely published. The companies involved just claim ignorance (which isn't illegal) and offer to pull that claim from future campaigns (as if that addresses any of the damage caused by the false claims). Their lawyers can file continuances until the campaigns they've already paid for are complete anyway.
So, in theory misrepresentations is banned, but it happens and is often not punished when it does.
But, yeah, current advertising is largely not about making any sort of claim; it's just telling a story the the customer and see themselves in, but is made somehow better (that real life) because the product/brand is present.
Price lists / labels at the point of sale are not advertising. Unpaid word of mouth is not commercial advertising. You don't seem to be following the thread very well.
I enjoyed legacy. It wasn't the movie I was expecting, and it has rough parts, but overall I found it fun, particularly the action scenes and the sound track.
I will also plan to see this one.
The communication methods mentioned in the summary can work for this. It might take longer than a quarter-year to peak/saturate the market but introducing such a novel product should require longer-term thought.
The future is not required to contain the business models of the past. More specially, I don't believe "there are businesses that would fail" is a good argument. We need UBI or a better social safety net for the people in those businesses, but the businesses can simply fail and nothing will be lost.
That said, I think advertising can probably be reformed through a combination of removing the puffery exception, enhanced enforcement of existing truth in advertising laws, and increased civil liability for falsehoods at all layers: product (Kraft, Nestle, Tesla), production ("Mad men"),, and propagation (networks, Hulu, YT)
Also a Nat 20 / Critical Skill check doesn't guarantee success, just the best possible result.
It's the weekend after, but the first time I saw this and my heart skipped a beat.
While I don't doubt this, I'm also sure that tarrifs will also affect the pricing/availability of utility (non-status symbol) mobile devices.
We are going to have to deal with this for 4 years (unless some Rs will vote the remove in 2) and recovery won't be immediate. I hope my current mobile lasts that long, but I usually only get about 3 years out of a battery. Replacement parts will be hit by tarrifs, too.