That's a very vague story. If people have bought access to watch a movie without a time limit, they can't legally just remove that access. Unless that service is available through other easily accessible services, like for instance an internet service.You also don't mention if you were in EU at the time.
It seems like this may be a 3rd party service delivered on the PlayStation, so it may be the responsibility of Studiocanal and not Sony.
As far as I can tell, the headline is misleading, it's streaming of movies bought on Studiocanal that isn't available.I assume streaming is still possible through other sources, but I can't really say, the service isn't available in my country.The company operates primarily in France, Germany and UK, so if the headline was really true, I bet it would result in a shitstorm from EU regulators.
OK admittedly it's not really relevant, it was merely a joke.But you can't honestly claim to not have seen those moronic posts about how China never invents anything and only steal their technologies from the west.They are so common it's insanely tiresome. In this thread there are none, maybe because in this case China obviously developed and invented it themselves.
I don't think the billionaires move because of a 1 time 5% wealth tax, depending on the rules, many won't be able to move in time anyway.But if the tax is 5% every year, I'm pretty sure most billionaires would. Even if it's not all of them.But when it's easy to move not too far away and avoid it many will.
Remember most billionaires don't register an income nearly as extreme as their fortune.If a billionaire pays 30% tax on $100 mil. income, and most don't because of deductibles and outright cheating, then that's $30 mil. in tax.I they pay 5% in wealth tax on a fortune of $1 billion, that's $50 mil. That would mean the wealth tax is higher than their income tax.And if they can move almost anywhere else to avoid it they will.
Also the psychological effect of suddenly introducing a high yearly wealth tax would be worse than starting moderately with 0.5%, which my own government in Denmark has suggested they might, and even that the rich threw a hissy fit over. But start moderately, with 0.5%, then wait a couple of years and increase by 0.25%.
It's not that I think this is really fair, I personally think the very rich should pay more for the privilege of enjoying to be rich.And the money should go to make conditions better for the poor and middle class.
I also very much agree with what Mamdani has done. Because they can't just move away to avoid those taxes on for instance their luxury houses that make a British castle look modest. They can't just move away and then come visit as they please, they would have to actually sell the property to avoid the tax.
Absolutely, China being communist makes them the enemy.But to be fair, capitalism is also a declared enemy to communist countries.Both are equally wrong.
Recurring would be nice, but they would move away immediately.We need to have international regulation that set a minimum wealth tax, so the billionaires can't escape it.Until then it has to be modest like 0.5% to have a chance to work.
Yes I've seen something in that line of thinking as well. But even if China has schools that are not top notch, they have sent students to other countries to learn for about 50 years. And their own top schools are among the best in the world now.
#11 in Hong Kong and #13 in Peking.IDK if the list is entirely fair, I imagine having a good and long track record could have an influence.China has been investing heavily in research and education, several times more than what we do in Europe and USA.So it's no wonder they are catching up, and even passing us now.
Funny to see how we both got a downvote? 😋🤣Maybe someone still believing in the superiority of the west, which clearly we don't have a monopoly on anymore, China has caught up, exactly as Japan and Korea have done before China.
In b4.Now that does it! I've simply had enough of China stealing our technology.They've been doing it for decades, but now they are stealing our technologies before we have them ourselves!! 😡The worst thing is I now have to hear about how this was never invented in China anyway, and without the west 1.4 billion Chinese people could never have invented anything, because they are too stupid./s
EDIT PS: For some reason OP edited the headline to be WRONG.The correct headline is:
China: Researchers transmit a whooping 51.3Tb/s through an optical fiber channel
1.2 Tb/s is per wavelength, which is normal to have multiple of. And has been tested up to 51.3Tb/s over a distance of roughly 128 miles.
Edit PS:Yes I know China has "stolen" technology, so has all developed countries in the world.Especially USA was built on technologies "stolen" from Europe. So give it a rest already.
AFAIK Slate auto is a cheap piece of crap. But AFAIK it's not available yet, so we don't really know.In Denmark we have 16 car models available below $25k USD. None of them as ugly as the Slate.
but there’s also usual 21% VAT like on everything.
We have 25% VAT!!It's disappointing to hear the Skoda equivalent to the ID.Polo is so expensive. I had hoped it would start $5k below that price.That last part about saying the starting price and then showing a way more expensive model, sounds like it could be fined as illegally misleading marketing.Here they always make such things very clear in reviews, and recently we have had influencers that had to pay pretty hefty fines for illegal marketing.If they can do it to influencers, they can do it to reviewers too.
I had a similar situation with a popular site where some used cars were stated to have a Trailer hitch but hadn't.I wrote to a couple of dealers and stated they were legally obligated to meet their advertising, and sell me the car with trailer hitch at no extra cost.It was kind of hilarious the polite answers I got back, turned out it was the site that added it because of a bug.If what you write is true, I think it's actually illegal by EU standards of consumer protection against misleading advertising.
I thought Dacia was made in Romania?We had the Dacia too a few years back, but it disappeared pretty quickly, I suspect it simply wasn't good enough, exactly because as you say it's incredibly weak, and has a very small battery, and although it was the cheapest when available, it clearly had worse value than the slightly more expensive competitors.
I looked up if you have any particular registration tax on cars in the Czech Republic, and as far as I can trell you don't, except a very cheap flat fee of CZK 800 (roughly €32) according to Google.
The other cars you mention are pretty close to the prices here. The Inster is $20,800 USD. The Fiat Grande Panda the same, and the Renault 5 $23,400 USD.So at least not as bad as the Citroen, but still a bit more expensive in the Czech Republic.That said however, there is a long tradition in Denmark to remove equipment that is standard in other countries, and have it as extras here. Especially smaller rims than standard are common. But also cruise control and seat heating. A package of extras to "upgrade" to normal easily runs up to a couple thousand dollars.This tradition evolved because Denmark had some of the highest taxes on new cars in Europe. And as a funny side effect, cars were sometimes exported from Denmark, to other countries, because the price without taxes was lower here. This could even be to the country where the car was made. 😋
Unfortunately Skoda doesn't have anything yet in the low price segment, VW recently announced the ID.Polo to arrive next year, maybe there will be an equivalent Skoda?Skoda are absolutely good cars, I bought the VW instead mostly because it was significantly cheaper as used, and there were more to choose among.
Here the median and average are about twice what you get in the Czech Republic. We are personally not up to the average, but we are doing fine anyway. 😋
The Mercedes-Benz EQS 450+ Sedan. Thanks to a massive 122 kWh (usable) battery pack and ultra-aerodynamic design, it achieves up to 926 km (575 miles) of range on the WLTP cycle.
But IDK for sure, because they use different measurements.
I sure hope you have better options then. IDK what country you are in, but it's weird that it's more expensive than here.Maybe it's because sales of EV is low, when inventory moves slower it makes products more expensive.Maybe dealerships should just parallel import the cars? It is a free market after all, anyone that wants to can do it.
No it's not, the extra tariff is absolutely to compensate for subsidies in China. When EU subsidized Electric vehicles, the subsidies were equal for cars made in all countries, also outside EU.China has heavily subsidized both development and production of cars in China. European factories do not get such subsidies, here it was on the sales, and was equal no matter where the car is made. For instance Tesla, Hyundai, Geely, Xpeng too received these subsidies 100% equal to European electric cars sold here.
So why don't you take that ignorant comment and shove it?
USA subsidizes American MADE cars sold in USA protecting their home market, and China subsidizes China made cars in general no matter where they are sold. And that is what EU tax extra. The tax is even adjusted on a per brand basis, so a manufacturer that has not enjoyed high subsidies is not taxed for it.
European car makers too profit from subsidies and they make worse e-cars for double, triple the price.
This is decidedly false, China is still catching up on several aspects, and the price is way more comparable if it's considered on a level playing field.Yes China has done extremely well in this segment as they have in others, but they are not better quality than European made cars. Especially not compared to German cars.
USA is different than EU with their tariffs on Chinese cars, both in that they are way higher with 125%, where EU tariffs have a base of 10% and an additional protective tariff ranging from ZERO to about 25%.
Yes it's nice, it still makes me laugh a bit because I think it cute. It's funny though because it only began doing it this year after a software update.
That's a very vague story. If people have bought access to watch a movie without a time limit, they can't legally just remove that access. Unless that service is available through other easily accessible services, like for instance an internet service.You also don't mention if you were in EU at the time.
It seems like this may be a 3rd party service delivered on the PlayStation, so it may be the responsibility of Studiocanal and not Sony.