Not to mention the law firm they hired advertises anti-union action, so that should tell you whether they can be trusted to be fair to workers…
Not to mention the law firm they hired advertises anti-union action, so that should tell you whether they can be trusted to be fair to workers…
Imagine you have to choose a health insurance company to be insured with like you choose a credit card (Visa, Mastercard, etc). Many doctors (shops) only accept certain insurance providers (cards) due to fees and other regulations.
The problem described in this article is when your insurance lists doctors that you can go to that will accept your insurance, but most of them have gone out of business or actually don’t accept your particular insurance anymore.
If you read the linked article you will find that exterior cameras feeds are plenty invasive enough.
I don’t think they have interior cameras (although other manufacturers do), but the front and backup camera feeds provide plenty of information as well.
Then there’s also this, if you need any more reason to be concerned.
Their privacy policy includes a provision that they can use the cameras and GPS to infer things such as sexual orientation, so yeah.
Windows Recall, the screengrabber they were about to release with an unencrypted database as an opt-out feature.
Actually, the GDPR applies to EU citizens no matter where they are so you shouldn’t have to make your request from the EU for them to have to believe it
You could have at least read the article before posting it. Nowhere does it say that, and the article goes into quite a bit of detail on how the bacteria travel. Or is that too much to ask?
Mmh, I see what you mean. Fair enough!
…what? How do you expect them to demonstrate their intelligence within the span of a single comment, without telling you? This “comeback” doesn’t work if their intelligence constitutes actually relevant context.
Okay, and they would argue that being progressive is never “right”. You refuse to acknowledge the fundamental flaw in your reasoning, which is that you are assuming a moral baseline that – while I’m sure is reasonable – simply not enough people share for it to be a given.
That is your standard, theirs is different. So how do you decide which is right?
There are unequivocable monsters in our society that should be exterminated
And who gets to decide who falls under that? If you ask former (and possibly future) president Trump, the left is “vermin” and immigrants “poison the blood”; his pick for VP is happy to sign off on progressives being called “unhuman”. Should these groups – in their view unequivocable monsters – be exterminated?
They’ve already started:
The artists I like don’t put out CDs with their music so no.
Apple Music allows you to add arbitrary audio files to your cloud-synced library. I believe it will even generate streaming revenue for the artist if the file is recognized to also be in the catalog of iTunes Match (but I’m not sure on that one).
I suppose that’s fair, but if you e.g. make a compelling counterpoint and the other person fixates on one small detail to derail the conversation, I think the people you can realistically reach will already be on your side, and anyone who wants to draw some kind of false equivalence between your respective positions wasn’t going to be convinced anyways.
It’s more nuanced than that of course, but in my experience that’s generally the way these things play out as the thread gets longer.
I’m 6’5 but I’m also German. Is that ok?
If someone is literally arguing in bad faith, what’s the point in engaging with them? There’s no way to persuade someone who doesn’t actually care about what they’re saying in the first place.
I used to be principled like you, but this man has the potential to cause death and destruction on a scale so unfathomably larger than one person. Would I prefer he face justice? Absolutely. But at some point “not wishing death on someone” flies in the face of the greater good of humanity