In theory, anyway, billboards are prevalent sans regulation because they’re (among) the most efficient forms of advertising. That is, if the advertisers would only be spending some money on astroturf campaigns and product placement instead of billboards, it must be because they’re less effective than billboards - otherwise they’d just put that money towards the astroturf campaigns and product placement in the first place.
So banning billboards makes advertising less efficient. In theory, anyway.
If you step on a nail you'll be less efficient at walking for a bit. Causing random harm to people isn't really the basis for a reasonable system of rules. The regulators could cause random harm to advertisers. Society can cause random harm to anyone. You're not going to make consumers (or anyone else, for that matter) better off.
I'd much rather be fed efficient advertising on a billboard than have to worry about more astroturfing, that stuff is insidious. Cure substantially worse than the disease once advertisers have to deceptive and have even bigger incentives to hide than they already do.
And much as the anti-ads people want to skip the point, nobody ever even established that advertising is a negative thing that advertisers need to be harmed for.
> Zig bdfl himself accused vlang of committing fraud a while back.
I think there's a difference between a critical generalization of a community and the mindset behind it and how that relates to the language (without weighing in on how legitimate that criticism is), and a direct accusation that one individual did a specific bad thing.
You should Google “does the French government regulate food in schools” before commenting about how the US government should be more like France and not regulate food in schools, as the French government very much is involved in regulating food in schools.
We negotiated a trade agreement with not just the US but the prior Trump administration specifically. The US is now in violation of that agreement based on justifications that are - charitably - idiotic misunderstandings (conflating a trade deficit with subsidization), blatant nonsense (the idea that "Canadian fentanyl" constitutes a national emergency), or constitute simple outright attacks on our sovereignty.
Canada, through the (actually fairly limited!) existing free trade exceptions in NAFTA/USMCA - which, again, Trump agreed to in the past and, in his usually banal hyperlative word salad, described as "beautiful" and "wonderful" and "perfect" and "the best ever" - did not violate an established agreement. And, more importantly, Canada certainly hasn't gone on for months about how the US isn't a real country, shouldn't be entitled to self-governance, and how we're going to leverage our power to annex it. It's hardly "returning the favour".
I feel like this must be some kind of a language barrier thing - the dev’s name appears to be Spanish, so English may not be their native language. And I think that most native English speakers - as demonstrated by multiple comments asking about it in this thread - would interpret “trying too hard to be fancy” as implying “because you can get similar high-quality results without using such sophisticated techniques”; but it seems like you’re saying (and this makes sense) they meant “because getting such high-quality results is overkill for a consumer laptop”.
Language is fascinating - I can convince myself with enough effort that the latter is just as valid as the former, given the literal meaning of the words, but my linguistic intuition is screaming at me that it’s wrong. How does someone ever learn that? How would a textbook ever explain it?
Agree with you, I was confused why everybody else interpreted in a different way. Am not spanish but german and not a native speaker, so the language barrier thing might be a good explanation.
She was. You didn't even do a modicum of research. She co-founded a hemp drink company in California and then self-assigned her own TN visa through the company she founded, which isn't allowed. Her visa was actually illegal and then she was found upon subsequent crossing. She tried to reapply and this time she was detained.
Sorry, I’m commenting on an article and don’t feel as though I should need more research than what’s written in it. Based on her account, that’s not really accurate, and I do actually trust her (and Guardian fact-checkers) more than your anonymous claims. Feel free to give sources.
Anyway: it’s still moot. What she did, even based on your account, is not illegal.
It’s not illegal to apply for TN, period. If the application is rejected, that doesn’t make the application retroactively illegal.
It’s not even illegal for a Canadian to apply for a TN at the border crossing, have their application rejected, and keep driving right into the US. I know this because it happened to me. As Canadians don’t need work permits to enter the US, entering the country wasn’t the question - only working in it.
Unless she’d previously been given paperwork that had banned her from entry to the US - and she hadn’t been - there was nothing illegal with reapplying. She was told to reapply.
Whether she did anything “wrong” is debatable, but whether she did anything illegal isn’t.
I was getting suspicious the more I read. When she said the guard though she was shady, I knew something definitely was up.
Guards/cops/whatever maybe be dumb sometime but they don't say this when everything is done correctly. If she had just made an honest mistake, she would have been told so and corrected. But clearly, she tried to do something that wasn't allowed or played with the lines on how things have to be done. Then she complains that she got detained for it. If you don't respect the rules, there are consequences, women tend to forget it because they get away with all kind of shit in today's society.
Also, The Guardian has a habit of obfuscating the truth (by omitting facts or orienting the narrative) to create outrage, so it doesn't surprise me at all.
I need to determine if this is true. I had not heard of it before, and the idea she would qualify for a TN visa seemed a little thin, but the rules are so arbitrary and uneven (especially these days) who knows. Regardless this sounds like a nightmare, and to top it off is neither "DOGE-efficient" or increases US security. It's a least 4-combinations of lose-lose.
Hmm, I'm not an American so this is all new and pretty interesting. If you wholly or partly own a company and the company sponsors your TN, would that be OK? Or is that still 'self-sponsorship' under the regulations?
I love the idea behind Framework, but my admittedly old one is nowhere near comparable to a MacBook. It's really unpleasant to use, feels cheap, and performance/battery life are shockingly poor on Kubuntu. It's not a patch on a ThinkPad even, much less a Mac. Have they gotten considerably better since I bought mine (end of 2022)?
Framework started selling larger batteries in 2023 (61 Whr vs the base 55 Whr), and from looking through older reviews it looks like battery life significantly improved (>25% better) with the 13th-gen Intel upgrade [1]. I've got their 13-inch AMD 7840U but can't speak to the battery life as it mostly sits docked.
Have the bigger battery, battery life is still bad.
It's just a bad laptop: has "hot bag" syndrome, speakers are terrible even with the upgraded kit, the hinge that turns the screen off is very temperamental.
Still no open BIOS, they've hired a “Linux guy” who is super condescending in their official forums and locks topics when he feels the heat.
reply