The only reason this happened is because one company refusees to play ball. Everyone else already figured out that it's better for consumers and them.
Apple would sell you a non standard power socket for your house if they could.
Apple would sell you a non standard power socket for your house if they could.
I don't think Apple are the biggest assholes in this situation.
"I know what is best for you, so I'll force you to make the car safety features I want".
It's not legitimate to regulate manufacture or commercialization of products when that manufacture or commercialization poses no direct threat to the physical well-being of other individuals.
Your scope is absurdly narrow.
Regulating emotions is arbitrary. Maybe it makes me sad that you post comments on HN. Should your comments be regulated?.
Physical harm is where you draw the line, because it's the only line that makes sense.
/s ... but seriously, yes, somehow claiming physical stuff is clean got popular, probably because of our intuition about the world, but it wasn't the case since people stsrted engaging in politics, trade, rituals, shaming each other for various reasons, invented organized religion, and so on.
Though of course regulating emotions is a silly reductio ad absurdum, but there are a lot of steps between physical harm and woke feels. Such as monetary damages as determined by a court for things like discrimination, abuse of market position, libel/slander.
We are talking about law, not social expectation. It's not at all fine to waste someone's time, cost them money, destroy them emotionally, or insult their mother.
But it shouldn't be illegal.
Regulations are centered around equality of outcome not equality of opportunity. People are not the same. Regions are not the same. They have localized, nuanced for better or worse problems and solutions. It's crazy to have completely separate input factors and expect the same outcome..
The idea here is that "of we regulate it people will have access to safer livelihoods" the reality is that you are raising the barrier to entry for that particular lifestyle and in effect reducing lower class socio economic accessibility. Just because the feds mandate all new cars have backup cams doesn't mean people can afford the costs associated with it. People should have the ability to leverage risk to better their financial well being. Anything else and you have no class mobility and no autonomy.
People pay a fixed percent of their income into the HC system.
Furthermore, while you are attending school (university, college, whatever), you are automatically covered.
There was a small token copay system for a few years about 10 years ago, that helped to cut down wait queues. (It was something like 2USD for each visit, because there was a sentiment, that too many people went to the doctor unnecessarily.)
There are of course possible ways to optimize it a lot more by incentivizing healthy lifestyle choices (eg. risk weighted additional premium to counter obesity, smoking, drinking, etc).
The effect on mobility is nothing since it's a percentage "tax".
Autonomy is nice, but cleaning up uninsured carcasses also has a cost, so autonomous folks should at least prepay that.
Alternatively If you lived freely, you could make 100$, decide you pay 60$for insurance if you want to feel safer and get the benefits from that service orrrr you could say "man I don't need that service right now in my life, so I'm going to invest that money instead while I'm young" and then not be poor..
Yea 50 years ago when nobody had health insurance the bodies piling up were a burden on society because everyone was dying because nobody could afford medical treatment..
Plus I already live quite freely, thanks.
I have no problem with having an option for people that would need to pay only when the need arises. (And they would pay full price, go into debt, or they would be euthanized if they haven't paid at least X years of HC insurance plus they have no money, nor any reasonable chance of making some after recovery.) That would be a nice natural experiment.
No, not at all.
It happened because legislators in the EU don't understand tech, don't understand re-cycling, don't understand the industry, but they all use iPhones+Androids and wonder why 'there are so many goddam cables'. It's a very specific problem that just happens to be visceral and immediate with the people in charge: they can all relate to it. So they want to 'do something' and 'legislation' is what they do.
It's the wrong approach I hope cooler heads prevail.
In fact, I still have a box full of wall-warts from at least 5 phone manufacturers, and not one would fit on a different maker's phone. In fact, for some producers, the power plugs were even different for different models.
Yeah, I so miss those days.
Now tell me, how many of those wall warts are from Apple and don’t have a USB-Port or a fixed cable? Exactly 0.
Now tell me how many of the other manufacturer’s power adaptors have either a fixed cable or a non-USB port?
All wall warts that came with any Apple Phone or iPad I ever used are still usable because they are USB.
Which is totally not a coincidence because back then, the EU was pondering forcing a common standard down producer's side.
I still have a Apple FireWire-wall wart from my old iPod, though. Again not a coincidence. It resides in the box with all the fondly-remembered Nokia- and Siemens plugs from the same time.
'Those days' of 'many connectors' will not go away, they'll just be another layer of weird multifaceted connectors, confusion, and lawsuits with respect to the actual meaning of the legislation.
With respect to sustainability, even perfectly formulated legislation will have zero impact on the amount we recycle.
The Little Red Hen obviously isn't taught enough over there.
Parasites and busybodies.