If nothing else, because corporations use it incredibly effectively to tailor behavior manipulation to you personally.

They’re a mess for everyone, and there is very little correlation between reviews and actual quality. There is not statistical value to using them.

More importantly, the confidence in any prediction you make using them is damn near zero. They absolutely should not be able to fire anyone with reviews being a factor in any way.

No, there is not. A license is just a contract.

Buying a company because they have a license you want is not remotely unusual. It’s perfectly standard behavior, and the entire enterprise world would fall apart if an acquisition lost the rights to licenses the purchased business owned.

I won’t debate this point either way. There are definitely ranges to quality, and I haven’t see bona fide research on the impact of factory farming and limited strains vs whatever else.

Also, processed doesn’t automatically mean unhealthy. It more just enables incredibly unhealthy things to be done either as preservatives or to cut costs

But the biggest impact on health is from the ready, cheap availability of low quality, high calorie food that is actively optimized for overconsumption, and the fact that frozen prepared foods (and fast food) that are affordable are generally not very healthy because of cost cutting. So that’s the best point of emphasis to be healthier.

Yeah, that’s basically what I’m saying.

I didn’t make the argument about the value of subsidies because the actual details of how they encourage domestic farming is above my pay grade, but subsidizing then taxing the specific use that’s damaging is way more “removing the active incentive to do harmful stuff” than it is [whatever his argument is?].

If costumer reviews/ratings were ever actually useful in any way you could make an argument for it.

But they’re a huge mess abused all over.

Apple did add RCS in one of the iOS 18 updates.

It’s just only E2EE when routed through Google.

No, it’s not the same.

Companies being acquired for their contracts is a daily occurrence.

Yeah, the terms would probably be legal, but they’d be so prohibitive that most companies wouldn’t sign them. Having to get a new license to key technology negotiated when you want to sell is a huge handicap.

Companies get acquired all the time. Losing licenses is not the norm.

I don’t feel super bad about acquiring ebooks if I have a physical copy either. I legitimately own a lot of content, including both a physical hardcover and an audiobook in many cases. If I want use margin notes on thinking fast and slow when I have the other two copies, I’m just going to.

Because it opens them up to obscene liability if they don’t have enforcement and age verifications well outside the range of what anyone who isn’t a massive business is capable of implementing.

Only if there’s an absolute bare minimum they’re allowed to choose of 5-10 years after the last device/software is sold.

And even then, I still think they should be required to unlock devices (and software DRM bullshit/APIs to re-implement server components) to allow people who want to maintain them themselves.

This should be a standard requirement for abandoning an internet reliant product (with all IP and internal documentation released and becoming public domain in the event of a bankruptcy, and keys handled by some consumer protection agency capable of facilitating community projects working to unlock them for owners).

But questionable value of the product aside, the fact that they’re making the effort to not be assholes and try to do what it takes to give their costumers’ products the life they can is better than most, so they deserve credit for that.

I didn’t propose anything.

But your summary makes absolutely no sense. A tax on manufactured corn syrup after subsidizing corn is functionally the same thing as removing the subsidy for just corn used to make corn syrup.

Qualcomm bought nuvia, which had a broad license to use ARM’s IP. They used said IP to make chips.

ARM claims that the change in ownership somehow invalidates the license and they were required to renegotiate new terms.

They couldn’t convince a jury because that doesn’t make sense without very specific terms explicitly detailing exactly what conditions nullify their license agreement.

Get a bigger cat.

I’m sure you could ride a lion.

I’m not saying anything about sales tax.

I’m saying that if you tax foods high in corn syrup, you’re just making it cost what it’s supposed to cost. You’re literally subsidizing the least healthy food at the moment.

Half of them are only cheap because of heavily subsidized corn being heavily processed into an inordinately cheap sugar substitute.

Taxes aren’t really raising prices so much as undoing the subsidies distorting the market.

Not really.

If you cook from ingredients, you’ll usually be reasonably healthy. It’s not impossible to make healthy prepared foods, but it’s (comparatively) expensive enough that that, not awareness, is the main limitation.