I’m just awaiting the government investing all these “savings” and the money raised through tariffs into an obvious crypto scam, which then fails spectacularly and predictably and all the US taxpayer money conveniently disappears into the pockets of those running the scam (which totally won’t involve Elon Musk).

Definitely not the people of American Samoa.

Edit: It’s interesting that RFK Jr is now only briefly mentioned in the body of that article, but several of the source links at the bottom explicitly reference him in their titles.

Well yeah, 90% of the market is overpriced crap - that’s not unique to boardgames, although like you say it’s understandble how when the material cost can be low. But there are some game makers that do really make the effort, and in particular when I looked up what Scythe is and all the pieces it comes with I feel it’s probably not too unreasonable to ask a higher retail price (although I saw them available for much less also).

People are already boycotting American things on their own, it doesn’t make sense to punish them. If anything, that’s more likely to backfire and make that government look bad towards its people.

The only way tariffs work is if the revenue collected from them is used to do something for the country setting them. America isn’t doing that, America is being stupid. Trump is going to rinse America dry and all the tariff money American taxpayers paid will be gone (probably by the government investing in a classic and obvious crypto scam meme coin).

Other countries shouldn’t be stupid like America, they should only apply tariffs with a plan to re-invest the revenue back into their country. If they even need to apply tariffs at all; I’d argue not.

The point I’m making is that retaliatory tariffs don’t make Americans suffer, let alone the American government. They maybe mean some American businesses make a little bit less money, but that’s it. What tariffs really do is make that country’s people suffer.

The American government is already making Americans suffer with American tariffs. It makes no sense for other countries to make their own people suffer with their own tariffs.

Ultimately, tariffs are a tax; they take money from the people and put it in the government’s pocket. I wouldn’t want my governmet taking more of my money, not at least without some plan for what it’s going to be spent on (and those plans being in my or the country’s interest).

If America wants to tax Americans for buying overseas then that’s their problem, and it doesn’t mean that Europe or other countries should start taxing their own citizens.

I just want to add something right here:

Retirement was pushed to the age of 64 under his name

Macron did this unilaterally by twisting an emergency constitutional power so that he could bypass a vote from the Assembly/Senate.

You’re only considering material cost, not time cost of employing someone to operate the machines. Also your system is not really scalable - it would take a long time per unit, making the labour cost even more significant per unit. There’s also R&D, distribution, marketing, etc. all before any profit is made. Also, as you mention, the quality of 3D printed pieces would be much poorer.

This is why it’s ridiculous that media in other countries are criticising their politicians for not responding harshly to Trump’s tariffs with tariffs of their own.

When America applies tariffs on imports it’s Americans who pay them. It affects foreign business slightly, in the form of reduced sales, but the real victims are Americans. When other countries apply tariffs, the main victims are their citizens.

The correct response to someone punching themselves in the face is not to punch yourself in the face.

Yeah I mean I feel like they’re just being overly cautious here (as lawyers often are) when in fact there is no real precedent to support that position. The law perhaps could be interpreted to stretch the definition of sale broadly, but in practice it isn’t right now.

Frankly, I find it offensive that businesses would choose to pass that minute risk onto the customer by weakening consumer rights.

The artist is Merrivius https://www.webtoons.com/en/canvas/elf-comic/list?title_no=983708

Elf girl is bottom left, the artist begins with M. Their comics are really popular on r/comics.

Edit: The artist is called Merrivius https://www.webtoons.com/en/canvas/elf-comic/list?title_no=983708

Shots fired lmao I bet this tanked on reddit, they’re obsessed with their elf girl (and that totally isn’t astroturfed).

Bitwarden is arguably a better choice, although the two options are generally so similar I wonder if they have a mutual owner.

Cool, I’ll give the video a full watch then. I normally don’t like Rossmann videos because he takes 30 min to say what he could have covered in 5-10.

But yeah, they shouldn’t be doing that. That’s selling of data. If they want to sell my data, that I manufactured by my literal blood, sweat, and tears of being alive, they should pay me for it first.

They’re not claiming a right to sell data right now, but they have removed the promise to not sell data.

That promise is a canary statement. When the canary dies it’s an indication of something, usually that it’s time to stop using the product/service.

More specifically, they aren’t claiming the right to sell data however they want. However, they do have to follow all legal requests, and they can bill for this provision. If a government compells them to sell they have to oblige.

Maybe it is kinda the same as when Google decided to get rid of the “don’t be evil” statement…

That was exactly what I was thinking of. Although I think there were even better examples with proper canary statements going away in line with the business’ alleged joining of the PRISM program.

Consideration does not have to just mean monetary payment

Your statement implies there are other forms of payment than monetary.

Firstly, “consideration” in this context means payment.

My statement did not state monetary payments only, just payment generally. I clarified 2 sentences later with “in exchange for a payment (money or otherwise)”. The point I’m making is that “consideration” is a payment in return for something else, and that payment can either be money or any other valuable item or service.

Ahh good ol Rossmann lol. I love him but I hate watching his videos, he goes far too ranty and repeats himself, it becomes hard to extract the real points.

Case in point, the video at your timestamp starts with an After-Before-Whatever rant before getting into any of the meat XD

I think everyone is really missing the points here. It isn’t just bad PR, it’s so bad that it can only be intentional. They didn’t just claim rights and put them back, they removed their pledges to not sell data. The conversation isn’t focused on the net result, the loss of the pledge, it’s diluted elsewhere.

Maybe they’re selling data to governments under law? I’m sure they already have terminology that permits them to do things legally required of them (so they don’t need you to give them further rights), and the general process for the tech industry is to protest against such government interference up until the point a contract is negotiated where the government pays for access. In fact, I think this is generally what’s happened with other businesses when their canary statements have gone away, as was revealed in the Snowden leaks.

Yes exactly. And that is entirely right and proper.

Nothing of what Mozilla should be doing meets that definition. Even if they share data with 3rd parties to process it, and even if they pay the 3rd party for that service, they’re not supposed to get something in return for providing the data. But also, providing data in such a manner does not mean they are selling it.

If they are getting something in return for providing the data, be it payment, other services or even simply a discount, then they’re doing something wrong.

I don’t think I said that? Consideration is any kind of payment, money or otherwise. The terminology of the law also says this, “monetary or other value consideration”. A discount is not really giving money to someone, but it may be valuable consideration (if it is part of a broader deal - a shop shelf discount usually isn’t).