More vulnerable, probably yes. Phones are very locked down and secured (unless you root or install custom firmware).

But, they are still worse for privacy due to how they’re used. The phone (and thus Google and Apple and Facebook and others) has access to your location all the time - your computer doesn’t. The computer is only vulnerable when on - the phone is always on.

The threats are different and from different sources. Random hackers mining shitcoins on your computer, big companies knowing what you’re doing when you carry your phone.

This is about light rail though, which is usually built in cities (or, at least between a city and its suburbs). So I wonder how much of the cost (for both rail and road) is for land rights.

That would be in every thread, from the most pro-communism to the most anti-communism threads.

No we’re not, you’re just in the blue zone. Us greens are quite happy.

I’ve gone through many pairs of headphones too, I’ve worked from home for years and had a long-distance relationship in a time before smartphones (and before cheap wireless headphones) so Skype+headphones was the solution. Both driving over them with an office chair and accidentally pulling them were real dangers and caused real damage.

Now I just don’t use them anymore, since I have meetings on a company laptop, and the relationship is much closer.

It’s not the same care though. Wireless earbuds come with a box. For regular ones, I’d have to make a suitable box, and also carefully roll the cables every time.

The battery will fail to hold charge and they will become useless. Not the truth for wired headphones.

I don’t know how you use your headphones, but in my case I switched to wireless because every single pair of wired headphones I had would break. Usually the cable, earbuds because they were in my pocket, and the overhead ones I’d drive over with my office chair.

Switched to wireless a couple years ago, no issues since then.

That’s still my favorite EU legislation. The price that is displayed must be equal (or higher, discounts are still allowed) to the price that you pay. Taxes, tips, fees, everything must be included in the price.

Ginger is a root and ale is a beer, but ginger ale is not root beer.

Also what you’re used to.

Australia? Normal day. Norway? Catastrophic.

It is great because it allows you to eliminate bad candidates very quickly. It can’t be the only test, but it’s very useful as the first one.

I think they meant 3/7/21 instead of the standard 3/5/15.

Um … Tankies and Nazis often disagree with each other. Are they both doing something right?

Also state capitalism, the economic system of the USSR.

The wealth will finally trickle down!

There’s a great test for programmers called FizzBuzz. It’s an extremely easy task - print some numbers (maybe 1 to 100), but replace them with Fizz if they’re divisible by 3, by Buzz if they’re divisible by 5, or by FizzBuzz if they’re both.

Many reasonable people consider it way too easy - if you can write this, it doesn’t mean that you can write complex programs, or that you know the applicable languages, or that you know anything about the business domain.

But interviewers know that it’s a great test because a lot of so-called programmers still fail it.

Everyone will call you a market socialist because that’s what you want.

Yes.

And despite all your railing against anything resembling a free market, I still don’t see any downsides of that.

“free markets”, the fundamental ideology of capitalism

Wrong already. The fundamental ideology of capitalism is that people with capital reap the profits (through control of means of production, but also means of living). You can shorten that to “rich get richer”. But nothing related to markets.

In fact, there were several instances of capitalist economies without a free market. Nazi Germany comes to mind - the government bought weapons, supplies, and everything else, but they were contracted from private corporations controlled only by “desirable” individuals. Other wartime economies apply here too, to a lesser degree - with rationing but still private ownership.

And yes, capitalists are always afraid of a genuinely free market, because they don’t want competition.

The two cases were “do (meaning ‘emulate’) their economy and policies” and “do (meaning ‘have sex with’) their people”. No “have” anywhere.

Do you understand that a law banning slavery is a piece of regulation? Would you agree that society is more free with that regulation, or less free?

The same logic applies here. The market is free when everyone can freely participate in it. Which means that we have to stop (regulate) those who want to prevent people from participating (i.e. monopolists).