The road leads to a chalet, and the only one who it benefits is the chalet's owner, making it easier for his drunkard customers to drive right to it on the weekends, with zero walking involved.
The road leads to a chalet, and the only one who it benefits is the chalet's owner, making it easier for his drunkard customers to drive right to it on the weekends, with zero walking involved.
The few exceptions are in the densest cities in the US, like New York, where new construction is concrete and steel.
Canada, I am sure, is the same. Mexico and South America, not so sure. I have been around some places in Central America that have tons of wood construction, and so did the parts of Argentina and Brazil I have seen, but you may have better information. Many houses that you think are concrete or brick actually have a wood frame.
* Fair supply chains. This was their original selling point and is still an incredible unique feature. They changed cobalt and copper supply chains and established tracing mechanisms that now other manufacturers can also use.
* Self-repairable. I switched two screens so far, probably not a huge cost difference to the neighbourhood dirty phone repair shop, but I feel better about it.
* Social enterprise, giving back to the community
* Nice to know my funds go mostly to a good cause and everyone in the supply and production chain is treated well (they even pay a premium to manufacturers so workers at the assembly line get paid a fair wage).
I am well aware it's not the best phone. It's rather clunky, camera used to be weak (got much better with the latest update), and I had some small issues. But overall a solid phone, I support a de kind of ecosystem that really improves things down the line and I don't need to feed Sony or Apple execs money.
I guess 10% would be reserved for absolute refusal of compliance and malicious compliance might attract a smaller fine?
*
Two scenarios: Company A violates consumer rights. Government does nothing, consumers continue to get ripped off.
Company B violates consumer rights. Government threatens fines. Company either fixes the problem (consumer hsrm reduced) or eats the fine (and the money can be used to pay for useful stuff). Either way, they can no longer gain by tipping off consumers and have every reason to stop if the fine may be repeated for a repeat offender.
*
Calculating on global profits is standard practice and is done the same theme the US calculates fines (depending on what the fine is about - you might have different reference points for different harm). This is the only solution as otherwise companies will play the usual whack-a-mole where they create an "affiliate Europe" that is legally separate but pays 100% of its net profits as a licensing fee for the brand name to the parent company, thus making 0€ (more difficult to play this game with gross sales, but there are still plenty of ways to fudge those numbers).
For example, when the US rolled out the cornucopia of state protectionism that is the IRA the EU has mainly responded by saying "actually, that's not very free marked of you USA".
In fact you have the same issue in the US but the states have no direct say, and statistics are not done the same way - so you don't see the impact the same way and don't have discussions the same way.
Apple Music and Spotify subscriptions cost exactly the same.
It makes sense that such theories like the continental axis hypothesis may turn out to play some role, but not be a single cause-and-effect. Earth is a pretty complex system, after all.
> The Weirdest People in the World: How the West Became Psychologically Peculiar and Particularly Prosperous
Source-source article: https://www.fu-berlin.de/en/sites/cairo/news/20241013_Lady-I...
Original source (German): https://www.geschkult.fu-berlin.de/e/aegyptologie/aktuelles/...
This is a governor's wife, not a princess.