This is just like Canada banning foreign investment in real estate. It admits there's a problem, data harvesting , homes as investments, but just solves a small part of the problem pertaining to "foreign bad guys" while ignoring the larger domestic issue.
All it does is make the government look like they did something without actually confronting the powerful interests that are causing the problem.
They actually have a somewhat open door policy for the weebs through JET. If your an American with a college degree than your welcome in Japan. There just aren't that many of them and those people also don't tend to have children.
There are a ton of people in the Philippines and S.E.A that would do anything to get to Japan even if the work is hard because the standard of living is so much better, much like Mexicans and central Americans wanting to come to the u.s. They would also be more willing to start families. Like the u.s. though they don't like brown people and only let a limited amount of them in legally.
There are no standards for hitting pedestrians, who don't exist in the u.s. There are plenty for car on car collisions cause that's all that matters.
Maybe eventually, it has to do with market share and if the service is a "core platform". Signal doesn't have enough market share to warrant it yet, even iMessage wasn't forced to since it's not that popular in EU. The law was mainly targeted at WhatsApp as that's THE messenger in the EU.
What were fundamentally talking about here is cost of human lives. And any cost can be added up for something and compared to the cost of another thing, as long as the units are the same.
Again if you buy a house over 30 years and pay $10,000 a year you can say that house cost you $300,000. You can then compare that to the car you also payed $10,000 a year for but over 4 years and say that the car cost you $40,000. You don't say well since I only payed for the car for 4 years so I should only compare it to the 4 years I payed for the house, so the house actually only cost $40,000. We understand that we should look at total monetary cost over time for things. If you don't than you end up in credit card debt because why would you pay off your $100 debt when you can pay $5 minimum payment, you bought a coffee for $5 the other day and that wasn't that much. Then 5 years down the line you ended up paying $500 in total and are still paying it because you haven't addressed the problem/principal.
If you agree that loss of life, like a dollar, is all of equal value, whether your rich or poor, from the u.s. or Africa, or born 2 years ago or 200, then this argument holds true.
In this sense you can compare old age to cars and old age probably costs more but there's less we can do about it. Just like you can say that buying food will cost you hundreds of thousands of dollars over your life but that's just the price of living, it's necessary. Meanwhile that extra $500 you spent on your credit card is completely unnecessary and could have been avoided if you had decided to solve the problem instead of letting it fester and slowly drain you.
The best way to get to that person with that problem is to show them what they've spent on that problem in total and compare it to something more tangible, eg. you could've bought a PlayStation with that money. That person could realize that they need to fix the issue then, or they could continue to ignore it and end up paying thousands over there lifetime, and we could end up ignoring cars and let 70 million people die over the next century.
Ok, then since 1914 cars have killed more people than WWI, that's the same time frame. We don't look at deaths from WWI that way though because we view it as a discrete event that took place between 1914 and 1918 and look at that event. No one compares wars by deaths per year, it's deaths per war. We look at how many people were killed because of this thing, be that war, disease or technologies, that is the human cost of that thing.
If you look at the cost of things that were paid monetarily you don't look at the cost per year, at least not after the fact. If your comparing the cost of your house that you paid $10,000 a year totalling to $200,000 to a car you bought all at once for $10,000 you don't say they cost the same or they can't be compared, the house cost more.
Do you think statements like COVID was killing more people per day than 9/11 or that it has killed more people than WWII in the u.s. inflammatory?
If so is that a bad thing? A graph showing the amount of malnourished children in the u.s. would be very inflammatory to progressives, just as a chart showing the amount of immigrants entering the u.s. would be inflammatory to trump supporters. Factual agitprop isn't objectively bad it's just subjectively bad depending on what you think people should be angry about.
Subjectively you may disagree that car deaths are something to be angry about but objectively the graph is fine unless it's false or misleading. Its not stating or implying that cars are more deadly than all wars combined, it's stating that cars have killed more than some specific wars. Whether that fact makes you angry is up to you.
wars tend to be a lot shorter than the existence of cars
Yeah but depends on how you define wars. For example the mongol conquests is up there and that lasted a good 60 years. You could say thats multiple wars tied up in a single cause or crisis.
These events can be on a spectrum between the thirty years war, to the crisis of the third century and the three kingdoms period, each around 60 years, to the hundred years war. The longer it gets the more it goes from being about discrete battles in a war, to discrete conflicts in a war, to discrete wars in greater war/crisis.
Either way on the ground these crisis look the same for the common people. Armies repeatedly going back and forth over your land, looting, raping, killing and spreading disease and making your life miserable and after a few decades this becomes normalized. In this sense cars could be a good comparison, a persistent normalized threat constantly killing people.
The casualties for cars even in this context look greater. The three kingdoms period, probably the deadliest of these crisis, caused 30 million deaths. Why it doesn't compare well though is that was half the population of China, whereas 70 million is probably only a couple of percent of the people who live in car centric countries.
I get paying a decent wage but why ban tipping. Here in California there is no tipped wage difference and min wage is pretty high but I still tip whenever I get the chance because I earn a lot more than service workers and that $5 is worth more to them than me. I also appreciate that it goes directly to the workers instead of through the boss who will take god knows off the top. It should definitely not be required and discrete enough so that those who don't can't be shamed but banning it just hurts workers.
It wouldn't be too hard if you take it from the starting point of you need to prove that you need it, and that could basically just be answering the following questions
Maybe add in another exception for large families but station wagons filled that niche fine before SUVs came in. Either way these are very discrete and definable definitions.
We even already have the framework set up, semi trucks require different licensing and registration so that some random person can't just buy a vehicle that can easily kill a ton of people accidentally. The way trucks are headed that argument continues to get more applicable.
You can if the company is a non-profit like open AI. Basically when you take on investments for a company you declare what the goal/purpose of a company is, either to make money (for profit) or for some other nebulous cause (non-profit) eg. Ending hunger or saving humanity from AI. If an investor thinks you aren't following that goal and are pursuing some other goal then they can sue the company.
Sadly most companies are for profit so they can only be sued if they're trying to do something that doesn't optimally make money. So a fossil fuel company can't be sued for legally dumping poison into the air if it's the most cost efficient method, but they can be sued if they do a less cost efficient solution that would make air quality better because improving people's health isnt there goal, making money is.