Hello. I have 4 years of private sector experience. Living with someone else who also does. Both STEM and paid above average for the place we live in (Portugal). Rent is half our bills.
Living alone outside not in a cube and in any place that resembles a city is but impossible. 40 years ago we'd be higher middle class.
The I in IP stands for intelectual; AKA, the clever things they reached with their thoughts. The artificial limitations are not IP, simply mechanisms they included exclusivity. They needn't be clever. if (!apple) { rejectApp(); hideDocs() } is not IP.
Why exactly is this worse?
It is an optional feature that the majority of people will be using, making herd immunity for those who do not
And how exactly do you plan to reach this high quality elite content without search engines?
"[search term] reddit" has been a top search since OpenAI decided to open the SEO bot floodgates.
Didn't they have some of the biggest house prices to income ratios? And wasn't private tutoring out of control in there? And weren't they fighting with almost every single neighbor they have?
Just because it is most of the time bullshit, it doesn't mean that is not a thing ever. The "think of the children" doesn't imply that legit application of child-protection laws are not a thing.
Telegram is for example known for Russian military bloggers, which are, in fact, promoting terrorism.
So, instead of fixing the cesspool we just designate a place for them? Why not just going after the ones committing crimes and state that big public groups must have moderation for basic shit? (Like no death threats and that kind of "moderation", not a "I don't like your opinions)
Alternatively: It is not (and generally not even encrypted) and he just happened to be in contempt.
Plenty of military-oriented and shady-business going in in there.
There's still the possibility that the authorities wanted to go after specific someones with a proper warrant and Durov blocked it. No country on earth goes for that.
We'll get to know the charges soon enough.
What you are trying to point is that in the United States of America (and maybe Canada) you people have coffee that's so expensive that two of them pay for YT premium. You're only missing out on most of the internet (eg. Not the US).
Starbucks is notoriously expensive and nobody refers to it as coffee round here. Starbucks in my first world country is considered something for hipster digital nomads. You can't find them outside areas with tourists as everyone else is happy with "regular" coffee that's literally 10 times cheaper.
Saying that two coffees equate to YouTube premium while using Starbucks as a metric is like saying that a car only costs a watch or two while using a Rolex as the reference watch. If you consider a Rolex to be your reference watch, cool, you're a privileged minority.
Well, to begin with, both the watcher and the creator are clients of the platform. Both sides feel bound to it, even if both dislike it.
Then, YouTube premium is literally 20 machine coffees a month in my first world country. 15 if they're done by someone. You seem to be speaking "privileged minority".
Did you even consider that your formula doesn't even work for 90% of people? 6 figure salaries are a US thing, everywhere else you get taxes to pay for irrelevant shit like health. Part of those taxes are for retirement. Those are not optional and scale with the salary from like 10% if you're poor to like 70% if you're rich.
At whatever age retirement is, you get a payout that's (not linearly) proportional to how much you paid in taxes. That's the whole of Europe. Probably more complicated or anarchic elsewhere.
Even with a top 5% salary, you're not going to pile up all that much.
The problem is not this scheme. Is that there are not enough young people to support the elderly.
Also a curiosity about Portugal: A lot of people are starting to lie about not having a degree when they do so that they can get shit jobs more easily. Too many degrees around. (Most people go to college, even if they fail)
And how come one wanting to have a say on their lives is equated with one wanting to have a say on other people's deaths?
Tolerance is about letting other people be and giving them rights, not about letting you decide on other people's being and letting you take their rights.
This is so dead simple existence 101 that one can assume but malice (or an ungodly amount of crayzo ideology) from you.