Miami to Jacksonville in half the time as driving sounds great, but then you’re in Jacksonville without a car.

I’d be mad about it applying to necessities like groceries.

I don’t have a problem with luxury coffee or junk food costing more at busy times of day. Once people know the pattern, it will shorten wait times for people willing to pay, and drive price-sensitive customers to alternatives. It’s the same phenomenon as the airport bar charging $20 for a beer, but applied to time instead of place.

Not to mention, it’s a significantly less effective tactic in a ranked choice system.

Based on a very abbreviated look at his channel, I would argue that he does not. His investments are not conservative; the kind of investments he’s advocating require continual research and significant expertise or they become high-risk. That doesn’t count as “never working again”; it’s working as an investor with yourself as the client.

When I say “conservative”, I mean stick the money in an index fund or three and do nothing more than reinvest any returns over the median income on a good year so there’s some extra to take out in a bad year.

Enough to provide the USA median income of about $85K from investing it conservatively, while keeping up with inflation, plus a little cushion in case of emergencies or adverse economic conditions.

That’s about $10M.

That number is a bit questionable:

• It only includes sites where the server-side language can be detected. That’s often easy with PHP because of URLs ending in .php and well-known software like Wordpress which identifies itself in ways that are easy for a crawler to detect.
• It counts sites, not traffic. There are a lot of Wordpress sites out there which get three visitors a month.

The EU already did, but it lets Apple impose significant restrictions and charge fees. I don’t think it went nearly far enough.

A significant chance of having to defend one’s self in court is enough to keep most people from doing a thing. That’s a major inconvenience, expense, and risk of serious consequences. It surely has a chilling effect on speech, or a civilizing effect on public discourse, depending on your perspective.

In the USA, I can write online that Trump advisor Stephen Miller is a Nazi, an asshole, and a xenophobe, and that I want him to kill himself, with no legal risk whatsoever. Nazi is the only one of those that even comes close to having an objective test for truth, which is actually what makes the statement protected under US law. If I called him a rapist or an embezzler, he might be able to sue for defamation.

Case law makes a big difference here. Germany allows a number of significant exceptions and limitations to freedom of expression, while the right is closer to absolute in the USA.

• In the USA, photographing people in public places and publishing those photographs without permission is legal, and cannot be made illegal without changing the constitution. It is mostly illegal to publish photographs of people without permission in Germany, even if they were taken in public.
• Making true statements about a person, even if they’re about something intimate or intended to diminish the person’s social standing is legal in the USA unless there’s a specific obligation of confidentiality, such as between a doctor and patient. Germany punishes releasing intimate information and presenting information in a way that encourages discrimination.
• Insults that do not amount to false statements of fact are protected speech in the USA. Insults are a crime in Germany.
• Hate speech is protected in the USA and criminal in Germany.
• Making false statements about history is protected in the USA. Holocaust denial and the like is criminal in Germany.

So no, Germany does not have a right to free speech in the sense that the USA does. One significant structural difference is that the US constitution expresses it as a negative right: it starts with “Congress shall make no law” and lists several topics the government may not regulate. The German Grundgesetz establishes positive rights to both freedom of expression and dignity, implying that the government must actively protect both and resolve conflicts between them.

I have long supported old-style platform immunity protecting providers from liability for the content of a search result, forum post, or the like.

Both individually tailored content recommendation algorithms and LLM output are different, and companies should be liable for the output of both when they’re used in the way social media platforms and search engines are currently using them.

I see 2FA as mostly a mitigation for users reusing passwords between services, which users of password mangers usually don’t. Of course, the password manger itself can be a single point of failure.

That gets you sued.

Saying that your moderation team determined private messages sent from the account constituted a serious violation of the acceptable use policy does not. They should have said that much.

Mine just says I might like brands I’ve bought repeatedly and might own items I’ve bought accessories for.

The company said it regretted the impact and was offering affected nonprofits a free “concierge service,” a meeting with a Microsoft specialist to help set up a new Microsoft 365 environment and answer questions.

After that experience they’re going to do business with Microsoft again?

Mine doesn’t have anything of a particularly personal nature, just obvious stuff from purchase history like:

• Likely favors Merrell brand for outdoor footwear (I have purchased the same model of Merrell shoe several times)
• Hikes frequently (a reasonable guess about someone who repeatedly buys hiking boots)
• Likely has a ThinkPad laptop (I bought trackpoint caps)
• Likely owns an Olympus camera (I bought a battery for an Olympus camera)

A proposal I’ve seen floated a few times is to require police to carry liability insurance individually and give them a stipend for an average/reasonable amount. This is usually paired with changes to qualified immunity to make lawsuits and insurance claims easier.

The idea is that risky behavior from police costs them money personally.

In a just world, the officer, the police department, and Flock would all owe her compensation. I’d put the amount at about 10x the fine for the offense.