There's also not really an objective outcome for a given policy, because you don't have a single grouping with aligned preferences.
You can estimate the impact objectively, but not whether that impact is good or bad.
38,716 karma · joined July 28, 2010
You can estimate the impact objectively, but not whether that impact is good or bad.
The definition of caring about it because you can see it.
Plus no diesel fetish.
No one is forcing you to buy a particular device.
You are not.
It's certainly convenient in this modern world to pay for and use one of their devices though.
People that think this is unacceptable are not remotely average users. Average users benefit greatly from their pocket appliance not being a full fledged computer.
The average US commute is less than 30 minutes, people aren't spending all that much time. And with a 30 minute commute, they are likely doing the same thing I am, passing by stores that are reasonable for many of their needs.
My water usage is pretty average and my electric usage is apparently hilariously low.
I mean, lots of people here resent charging for software also!
Maybe they print money in spite of the user hostile stuff.
Southeast Michigan still has plenty of manufacturing is the point.
I guess they have a lot of Pizza Huts or something?
I'm impressed they only got the bedside one recently. My dentist just recently upgraded to direct digital sensors for their x-rays (wires to the computer in the room instead of digital plates), but the X-ray source shows decades of battle scars.
We lost the majority of the old, large trees, but the forests came back.
Maybe a few people get some functionality out of the design.
For instance, if there's a lot more doctors, the payer may be able to negotiate lower prices. We already have insurance mechanisms that drive patients to the providers that the insurer has negotiated with...