The €3 customs charge, which is on top of VAT, represents both favoritism toward EU commercial sellers (the tax only impacts individual consumers) and protectionism at its finest. This new surcharge taxes people for buying direct and not shopping at traditional EU stores.
As much as the EU is credited for being pro-consumer, they really care more about the establishment.
Insurers rely on reinsurance (insurance against their insurance) for precisely this reason. And if a disaster bad enough to take out a major insurer happens, it wouldn’t surprise me if the government stepped in.
I just tried Qwant out of curiousity and immediately got a headache from the bright blue-purple color. Its UI isn't as readable as Google and I would find it annoying to use frequently.
Also, shouldn't EU Parliament web browsers follow the same standards as the EU requires of Google-- i.e. users are prompted to choose a search engine after installation?
The top-level discussed a theoretical risk of data being exfiltrated by third parties for training. Other comments discussed contract law and legal remedies, including Delaware’s excellent court system for handling business disputes.
None of this means you don’t have the same rights as an individual to enforce contract terms. I think the top commenters discussed corporate law because that is where most IP theft occurs, and corporate customers have strong contracts covering data protection.
I see the challenge here is that the plaintiff surmised there was a faulty “algorithm,” but didn’t have proof until the government published its audit report nearly a year later. I wonder if the claim would have succeeded if she instead simply alleged that the government was improperly allocating school spots on a widespread basis without claiming there was an algorithm.
I don’t think The Guardian’s headline is accurate because the algorithm didn’t win, rather the parent involved didn’t have her day in court at all. Regardless, this is another example of the everyday issues people face (and will continue to face) when governments use technology improperly.
What I find most interesting about this website is that even in 2026, Germany still requires website owners— even hobbyists- to list their name and personal address in the Impressum. So much for anonymity.
This is admirable but the process in Germany right now is overly burdensome. It probably does weed out some bad actors (and good actors) not because of the documents required or any sort of checks performed, but because it takes months and costs thousands of euros.
Again, with all due respect, I’m not seeing how my comment is pushing a “life choice” on anyone, and the movement to restrict alcohol consumption equally qualifies as pushing a life choice on someone.
Commercial pubs have existed for hundreds of year. But drinking doesn’t have to be commercial. In Berlin where I live there’s a non-profit hacker space that has a bar with at-cost drinks. It’s also perfectly legal to buy a beer and sit in the park. And of course, nothing is better than having friends over for a wine tasting.
With all due respect this opinion verges on neo prohibitionist alarmism. The social benefits of alcohol have been widely acknowledged and at a time when we are all spending too much time at home on our phones (arguably worse for health than a pint), communities need more social spaces. That place may not necessarily be a bar and it’s perfectly fine if you don’t wish to drink, but it’s a bit much to refer to a cultural product as a criminal enterprise.
Encouraging the creation of new housing is the way to go. One thought— what percentage of new home purchases are made by large investors and is it growing? This seems like the most important metric to look at rather than existing ownership.
This is a good point. The major issue I see is the BBC is funded by taxpayers through government-mandated contributions, whereas Fox News is a private company.
The last bullet is a good idea but wouldn’t work in practice. Otherwise a company could hire someone else’s H1B worker for $10k more per year and avoid the $100k fee.
I'm studying for my CFE (Certified Fraud Examiner) and can shed some light on this.
As others mentioned, unexplainable business models or money coming out of nowhere are major red flags. A few others to look out for if you are applying for a job:
1. Few or no internal controls. A medium-size or larger company not having a CFO is particularly questionable.
2. People in high positions, including the CEO, lack qualifications or experience. Often the CEO will hire inexperienced or incompetent people for high-level positions because they a) won't figure out what is going on or b) can figure it out, but are too grateful for the position to say anything. Or maybe the CEO never finished college in a field where everyone has a PhD (think Elizabeth Holmes).
3. History of experienced / qualified people joining the company and leaving soon after
4. Seemingly unexplained success.
5. Extravagant spending and inappropriate workplace behavior.
6. Cult of loyalty to the CEO and/or a "circle" around this person, including close interpersonal relationships.
As much as the EU is credited for being pro-consumer, they really care more about the establishment.