dhnajsjdnd

Counter-counter-claim: The existence of Bitcoin doesn’t reduce the energy use of traditional banks - in fact, it increases it. Bitcoin is not just responsible for the energy used in mining, but also the energy used in its voluminous interactions with traditional finance.

Sometimes clubs get evicted so the building can be turned into condos. This happens in San Francisco too. In a city where building is limited, clubs are often located in “blighted” areas that are ripe for redevelopment with few NIBMYs.

It’s worth mentioning that many props don’t allow the legislature to override them period, even with a unanimous vote. The 7/8ths rule, while unusual, is less extreme than not allowing any vote at all. It’s essentially an “oops we drafted the prop wrong and accidentally banned wages” get out of jail free card.

I think there’s a common misunderstanding about how tax write-offs work. If you donate x dollars, and your marginal tax rate is t, you end up losing x - xt dollars. That means you have less money than if you didn’t donate, even after accounting for the write-off. Arguments that somebody only donated money for the tax write-off usually don’t make sense.

Possibles exceptions to this include hard-to-value assets like art, where someone could potentially exaggerate the value by at least 1/t to defraud the tax authorities, but this doesn’t seem relevant to donating publicly-traded Microsoft stock. Bill Gates would be richer if he didn’t make these donations.

When you go to Apple’s App Store, you see ads for apps. If you click on an ad and install the app, Apple gets paid for that conversion, and that will happen whether or not you’ve opted into “cross-app tracking”. If you see an ad for the same app on Facebook, Facebook will not get paid for that conversion unless you’ve opted in. The market for ads for apps is worth billions, and Apple put this “cross-app tracking” block in place, which will help them capture that market. By using their privileged position as platform owner and setting the default choice, they’ve taken over by fiat instead of through competition. Sounds like an antitrust case to me.

Apple added an opt-in requirement for Facebook’s ad business but not for its own. Users, on average, will stick with the default. How is that not picking winners and losers?

Because enough money is at stake to make it worthwhile to pay the lawyers, I’d imagine.

> Wouldn’t they just let users opt-out of the wanted to?

Users already could opt-out. I imagine the lawsuit will be about Apple’s recent changes, which unevenly apply an opt-in requirement that arguably picks winners and losers (see above).

> In any case, I think we have established that my characterization of facebook’s business was accurate. They wouldn’t be seeking remedies for something that wasn’t important to them.

Your claim is that Facebook is trying to mislead people about the lawsuit, and I don’t think you’ve established that at all.

I expect the lawsuit will be about how Apple is requiring users to opt-in for companies to be able to track ad conversions in some places but not others.

Will require opt-in to track:

Facebook ad conversion to buy an item in Wish’s store

Facebook ad conversion to buy an app from App Store

Won’t require opt-in to track:

Amazon ad conversion to buy an item from a store on Amazon

Apple App Store ad conversion to buy an app from the App Store

Facebook’s proposed remedy might be removing the opt-in requirement, or adding the same requirement uniformly to create a level playing field.

Sure, “tracking without consent” is an easy one.

You said:

> by tracking user behavior without consent so that they. can sell targeted ads, and by keeping users engaged with the ad delivery platform by presenting content algorithmically selected to provoke emotional reactions.

Some things in here are the core business model, others are implementation choices that don’t have to be true (like the sweatshops). I don’t think it’s reasonable to say that the lawsuit should fail because they didn’t lead it with a list of complaints people have about the company (not would I expect Apple to include the same in their response).

You’re just expressing that you have some beef with the company, not making an argument about the lawsuit. You could similarly talk about how Apple depends on sweatshops to increase margins.