The article is actually saying they've had record sign ups this year and as far as I can see doesn't make any comment about a decrease in sales in the last 2 weeks since the implementation of this regulation. There is a first hand report of someone stopping their shipping really far down on this post, and then someone on that chain links to a reddit comment from someone as well.
I'm sure there's probably a few comments I missed, but idk if I'd say there's proof of countless here or in the article.
It does seem like it'd have a chilling effect if the article's interpretation is correct, and other comments here also stated that the EU commission wanted to have a central registry to minimize the overhead.
You pay taxes in the US? You are directly enabling a country to harm others.
You ever buy a phone? You are directly enabling a chain of groups to harm people (in the name of creating that phone).
You ever give a dollar to a homeless man? You might be directly contributing to them harming themselves (or possibly just letting them buy food/drink).
Heck even your example about your sister, I think some people would argue that it's still the moral choice.
Clearly there's a spectrum here. Black and white thinking and statements aren't helping and shouldn't be the basis for policy decisions.
You can and should be making explicit choices in that framework.
You should not buy phones connected to the mistreatment of the Uighur population - and that is doable.
If you think the US is doing more harm than good, you are allowed to move and surrender your citizenship.
And yes, that is literally why I don't support direct cash handouts to the homeless. You can feed them and house them, you can't throw money at them and expect a good outcome.
You should not cast your money as to do harm. If your money is the difference between your sister being homeless or not, then stop giving her money and pay her rent. Buy her grocery cards.
But if you directly contribute to harm, knowably, you are enabling that harm. This is not some weird novel part of ethics. It is in fact black and white.
> If you think the US is doing more harm than good, you are allowed to move and surrender your citizenship.
Well, no, you aren't necessarily without paying a special additional tax to the US government, so it doesn't really solve the problem of believing that paying US taxes is active participation in morally intolerable actions.
> If you think the US is doing more harm than good, you are allowed to move and surrender your citizenship.
Actually, I have heard that it’s very hard, if possible at all, to surrender American citizenship. It’s a real problem for some people who had the misfortune of being born on American soil.
Not only is it very doable but the US consulate in your new country will literally help you fill out the paperwork.
1. Move to a new country
2. Present proof you have a new citizenship (you can't generally be "nationless" by international law or you end up remaining a citizen of whatever country you were last a citizen of)
3. Fill out the paperwork and pay $450. The consulate will assist you if you need help.
If you can follow the instructions to bake a cake, you can surrender your US citizenship. It's neither difficult nor expensive.
> And yes, that is literally why I don't support direct cash handouts to the homeless. You can feed them and house them, you can't throw money at them and expect a good outcome.
You maintain this despite all the research showing that this is the most effective way to help people?
Isn't "if there are regular drone strikes, it feels like the aggressor country is past that Rubicon." kind of self-refuting?
Conventional forces aren't deployed in many instances where regular drone strikes are used, thus the country didn't feel it was the right risk/cost to deploy conventional forces.
At the very least, it's a statement that deserves more debate, and I'd point to the many examples of how reducing cost and risk tends to increase the rate of an activity.
I mean that's definitely cherry picking portions of the wiki. Both of the articles refer to each other much more than those examples, not that that really matters.
Plus the Supply Side Economics wiki article, right below the "Not to be confused with trickle-down economics", contains a huge box pointing out the many issues with the article, including but not limited to "Needs more academic or scholarly research, rather than newspaper articles." and "contains weasel words: vague phrasing that often accompanies biased or unverifiable information."
It doesn't fix the spoiler effect (it makes its own version of it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Center_squeeze ), and it removes monotonicity. The second one is a big deal for me, at least in FPTP a vote for a candidate always helps them. With RCV, a vote for a candidate can hurt them, and sometimes not voting makes the outcome you want more likely than if you did vote for it.
The 2022 Alaska election was a great example of it failing: https://realrcv.equal.vote/alaska22/ FairVote called that election a success because people managed to fill in their ballots, even if they didn't get the outcome they thought they were voting for.
I thought that was more about correctly interpreting their asks, and not just actioning without consideration. If all your customers are saying your chair could use a cushion, it doesn't mean add a cushion, it means the chair is uncomfortable and you need to investigate why.
Are you agreeing with the parent and giving examples of regulations that have been debated? Or are you trying to give examples of some of the "strawmen" regulations?
A lot of these examples are pretty subjective or missing context...
I'm sure there's probably a few comments I missed, but idk if I'd say there's proof of countless here or in the article.
It does seem like it'd have a chilling effect if the article's interpretation is correct, and other comments here also stated that the EU commission wanted to have a central registry to minimize the overhead.