They just use the infinitive, like for example in "I swear she be doing that" (instead of "I swear she is doing that"). Thats just a dialect some people have.
Even so, your statement that it is only available on closed-source app stores is wrong. And it doesn't even matter that it's not provided by "My First F-Droid Repo Demo" (yes, that'd the name of the official repo). Many open source apps are on IzzyOnDroid, including Jerboa, what do you use to write on Lemmy?
Either way, your original comment is completely wrong and it doesnt help that it's "only" available in the most popular extra repo.
To save myself the hassle of having to rebuild the electron app every once in a while? I'd rather not open my browser, go to their website and log in with 2fa every time I want to read an email.
If thex subscribed because of the interface (ehich is certainly plausible), what would they need IMAP support for? Also, if you really want IMAP, xou can have it, you just need their (open source) Proton Bridge for it (thats a sofrware) so that ut retains all features. But then I would need my own email client.
What is it for though? It's overridable, so essentially it just makes it easier to ride without paying too much attention. Also, the speedometer legally had to be slightly lower than the actual speed, sp you're actually driivng slower than the speed limit.
No liability. Got your food 2 hours late? Better yet: Didn't get your food at all? Guess you lost that money.
Pricing. If drivers are able to make their own prices, they will probably start undercutting each other, resulting in very low fees for the drivers. Also, it would be very intransparent to userd how much the delivery will cost.
I guess that depends on the metric you use. You say they should be punished by time (and so people who earn money more quickly should have to pay more). However, I see many problems with that and I think it would result in much less fair fines than now.
Picture two persons, one living in the countryside, one in a big city. The second person earns considerably more than the first because life in the city is just more expensive. Both persons have the same amount of money left at the end of the month (after paying the bells etc) but income-adjusted fines would mean person B would have to pay way more.
If it's posession-bases instead (i.e. your fines depend on what you have/own) then what about some person who inherited a large house that is worth lots of money and has an otherwise normal job. This person may also have the same amount of money left at the end of the month as the other two persons but because of his big house, he'd have to pay even more, potentially sell his house because of a small offense.
Lets focus on non-necessity acts here (e. g. traffic violations).
Deterring people is not the only goal, it also needs to be fair/appropriate. And this is where, IMO, the income-adjusted fines fail.
Fines should be adjusted depending on the offense commited, possibly also taking into account the intentions. Personal wealth is not a factor that seems reasonable to me to take into account regarding the fairness.
Essentially, I believe that everybody should be treated equally before the law. Nobody should be treated better or worse (or have a better or worse punishment) just because of their social status. That's why I believe that fixed fines are fair and the suggested varying punishments are not. I do recognize that they may deter wealthier people less.
Okay but then what about those poor people mentioned above that need to steal for necessities. Wouldn't we want to deter them the most (as they are the most likely to commit the act)?
It doesnt seem logical to me to say that we should increase the fines to deter (wealthy) people more and at the same time say that we should lower the fines so (poor) people that are currently deterred can afford to break the law (?)...
You have a point but what about stuff like traffic violations? Nobody NEEDS to commit one, so should these fines be the same for everyone?
Also, following your example, person A making 75k/year and person B making 150k/year both have no necessitiy to steal groceries. Yet, if the fine was income-dependent, person B would have to pay way more.
Also, this would mean people with no money or income could do what they want without any consequences.
Im also failing to understand why successful people should supposedly be charged more. It doesnt make a difference if the person who committed the crime has more or less money, so they should be charged according to the crime, not what they have.
Its right they're, you can see it!