I guess that’s what they’re aiming for, to turn the general public against protests (even more).

Sounds like taxes with extra steps.

The EU can’t “save” the rest of the world alone, true. All I’m saying is it doesn’t necessarily require the entire globe to cooperate to outlaw something just because it’s on the Internet. And that Mozilla scheme won’t save you either.

I mean they don’t have to literally jail advertisers (although I’d love that). I’d agree with hefty fines. Which, while not perfect, several EU laws have shown is possible unilaterally (e.g. Apple allowing third party app stores in the EU, albeit kicking and screaming).

I agree that it’s a mountain to climb, but we sure won’t reach the summit if we walk in the other direction.

Opt-in IS simple. Mom just won’t opt in.

Privacy based advertizing:

1. Develop ad

2. Think about what websites your target demographic will probably frequent. (Be creative, dear marketing person! You can do it! This is the essence of what you’re getting paid for!)

3. Pay those sites to display your ad

Done.

Forget about the technical details and whether the user understands what it is.

No. Why? It’s simple. They are collecting data I don’t want the ad networks to have instead of the ad networks and give it to the ad networks. That’s only more private than the status quo if I’m okay with them to have this data and trust them to handle it responsibly. Which I have no reason to.

which is why they correctly say that the user won’t understand the Feature.

See explanation above. That’s not too complicated to explain to a person that managed to turn on the computer. It only gets complicated when you try to follow the mental gymnastics you need to think this feature adds privacy for anybody.

Sadly, tracking is the only way to perform attribution without help from the browser. Tracking is terrible for privacy, because it gives companies detailed information about what you do online. While Firefox includes many privacy protections that make it more difficult for sites to track you online (Enhanced Tracking Protection, Total Cookie Protection, Query Parameter Stripping, and many other measures), there’s a huge incentive for sites to find ways around these in order to perform attribution. Our hope is that if we develop a good attribution solution, it will offer a real alternative to more objectionable practices like tracking.

“Our hope is, that if we transfer the bank robber some of our money in advance, they’ll not come in and rob all of it.”

No! Jail the fucker!

People who don’t pay income tax in the first place because they are so rich they don’t need a normal income. Those need to be taxed more.

It’s just “eat less” with extra steps, and that’s not what people hope it is.

Carbs are processed first, so if you don’t eat carbs, in theory your body will burn depot fat earlier.

You still need to eat less calories than you burn though.

I don’t think that’s what they’re getting at.

If “should” is all the argument you’ve got, I’m not convinced.

It is actually an excellent idea, because it ensures billionaires don’t just move to Switzerland to evade taxes.

“Rational”

“Petrol price controls”

Ja, selbstverständlich. Ich widerspreche dir doch gar nicht. Für die Frage der Reallohnentwicklung ist das trotzdem ein Sndereffekt. Deinen alten schlechter bezahlten Job macht ja jetzt auch vermutlich jemand anderes.

Hab ich auch, aber ich glaube, diese Sondereffekte einzubeziehen ist nicht sinnvoll für die Fragestellung.

Wäre ich 2019 schon in meinem jetzigen Job gewesen und da schon per annum so erhöht worden wie in der Zeit, die ich tatsächlich da bin, wäre ich nicht auf +20% gekommen.

im selben Zeitraum stiegen die Nettolöhne um 24 Prozent.

Meiner nicht. Eure?

Mein Reden. Ein Zeitungs-Netflix muss her. Und die Verlage sollten es besser selber auf die Beine stellen, bevor es ein reicher Amerikaner für sie tut.

How does this even make sense? You can’t pay more in taxes than the earnings you’re paying taxes on. If you deliberately cause a 10 million loss reducing your earnings by those 10 million and thereby saving a percentage of those 10 million in taxes, you’re not very good at math, are you?

That’s not true at all. We’ve not burned as little coal as today since 1959.