And if Apple still made computers in the US, we might all be earning $9500 a week here in the US with all these manufacturers competing for local workers.
You're telling me there's a formula that would allow all these other automotive companies worldwide to produce cars for 1/4th the price and yet nobody has figured it out even after producing cars for as much as 120 years, while China did after just building cars for a few years? What's the secret sauce, exactly? That's a ton of money left on the table and many of these companies have produced vehicles in China for decades, yet still don't know this secret.
No doubt there are outliers, but sales figures show that German brands (and Tesla) dominated sales in the EU while the Mondeo was still around. Here in the US, this segment is dominated by Asian and German brands as well which leaves little room for companies like Ford or GM to compete, especially when this whole segment shows declining sales year over year. They sell far more trucks and SUVs which is why those have become their focus. Why spend billions to build a car that only earns you millions?
This law is not targeting people filming in public. No provisions in the law say that you can't film in public.
The entire premise of this law is based on filming in public. It doesn't say you can't film in public, but it does say you can't share videos containing certain content that isn't well defined and can easily be twisted to include any video video filmed in public. Imagine someone filming a protestor getting beaten by police where a woman is facing away somewhere in the background. This constitutes "filming an unsuspecting woman's behind" and the video gets taken down while the uploader gets banned. This is such an easy point to reach and doesn't require some convoluted conspiracy to pull off.
I never said it wouldn't impact people uploading protests or police brutality. I never spoke to that point at all.
Yes, you did speak to it here when responding to this person:
But I also feel like this is the kind of law that needs to be crafted very carefully to make sure that it's not going to infringe on legitimate reasons people may have to record people in public. I could absolutely see Republicans here twisting a law like this that was made with good intentions to go after people for posting videos of ice arrests online.
This doesn't appear to be a crackdown on filming in public places. It seems to be going after the people who distribute it and the platforms who host it.
You do realize that people shoot voyeur videos for personal use, right?
Yes, and by your own admission, this law doesn't target those people.
Meanwhile, you're arguing the law will target people uploading videos to the internet and platforms that host them, but that this somehow won't affect people uploading videos of things like protests or police brutality because it instead targets videos that people film for "personal use" and don't upload. It makes no sense.
While this case shows recovery is technically possible, it also shows it’s rare, resource-intensive, and reserved for extraordinary circumstances.
How does this show "it's rare, resource-intensive, and reserved for extraordinary circumstances" when that's entirely based upon the word of the people doing it in secret?
“Google is notoriously uncooperative with law enforcement; they will comply with search warrants, but in the least helpful way possible and they will fight it,” he says.
“Google has received legal process from a Law Enforcement authority compelling the release of information related to your Google Account,” it read. The email advised Jon that the “legal process” was an administrative subpoena, issued by DHS. Soon, government agents would arrive at his home.
The subpoena wasn’t approved by any judge, and it didn’t require probable cause. Google gave Jon just seven days to challenge it in federal court — not nearly enough time for someone without a crack team of lawyers on retainer. Even more maddeningly, neither Google nor DHS had sent him a copy of the subpoena itself, leaving Jon and his attorney in the dark.
This article reeks of whitewashing for the government and tech industry.
I did list specific examples. You claiming "China makes everything because Western companies sought to maximise profit. Costs go up, because the Western companies selling the Chinese-made product put the price up to maximise profit" is also a generalization that proves nothing.
In these industries listed, the Chinese government is subsidizing these companies so they can sell these products for a cheaper price than anyone else in the world and put their competition out of business, which is exactly why "they make everything." Your argument is akin to claiming that the ever increasing wealth billionaires isn't the reason why the average American becomes poorer each year, as if the two things aren't mutually exclusive.
Capitalism dictates going with the cheapest price and China ensures it can always offer the cheapest price using their government's deep pockets, but this isn't sustainable forever which is why prices must rise once the competition is out of the way. They can then take this capital and repeat the cycle in a new industry.
How you can claim "yeah China makes everything but that doesn't prove they take over every industry they move into" without any sense of irony is quite bewildering. There's no secret knowledge or magical formula that exists only within the borders of China that allows them to undercut everyone else. It's just a giant pile of money that allows them to do it.
This contradicts your previous comment. You said it isnt a crackdown on general filming in public because it's meant to target people who post voyeurustic videos and the platforms that host them, but now you're claiming that voyeuristic videos aren't even intended to be posted online, so who does that leave as the intended targets of this law?
It doesn't seem like much of a stretch to see this used as a justification to pull any video filmed in public that at any point depicts an "unknowing" woman in frame.
Escobar said drone activity along the U.S.-Mexico border has been a well-known problem in the El Paso-Ciudad Juárez region.
“Those of us who live in El Paso likely have known that there have been drone incursions from Mexico going back to as long as drones existed. So, this is nothing new, and this drone incursion from Mexico (was) obviously not something any of us want to see. But this is not unusual, and there was nothing extraordinary about the drone, any drone incursion into the U.S. that I’m aware of,” Escobar said.
I feel like its something else they didn't want anyone to see from an aerial perspective, like troops entering Mexico or the digging and filling of mass graves for ICE detainees at Fort Bliss.
For an obvious example, go to the store and pick any random item off the shelf and its likely made in China. They've done it with ships, solar panels, batteries, steel, railcars, and now EVs to list just a few.
They certainly aren't selling feature-rich EVs for 1/4th the price of everyone else on the planet for altruistic reasons and I'm sure you can't list any examples of an industry under monopolistic control that benefitted anyone other than the people controlling it.
This is not uncommon with twin child actors. The Olsen twins in Full House are a famous example