If you want my data on a paid API basis, then ask me about it. I need to know how big the demand is for third party users before I even prioritize building a paid API, having the god damn courtesy to ask for something would give me an idea.
If you're using my data to hijack my traffic, without asking, you could have all the right justifications in the world but you're still a prick. Who knows, maybe your orphanage building app will move me tears once I hear about it and I'll give you free access.
When you encrypt the message, you are not exactly stringing people along wasting their time. When they say that they'll send a car to the inspector, they are tying up regulators' resources in order to sneak away. That's interfering with their work.
Now, the reality is that these inspectors don't need an explicit order to inspect you. If they did, then Uber should simply take these inspectors to court or claim that any evidence they found is inadmissible. Tying up their resources and getting away is beyond simply hiding something, it's purposefully diverting their resources somewhere else. If they simply didn't respond to regulators asking for a car, maybe you would have a point, but they're tying up these resources.
I see the civil disobedience argument thrown around here now. Are you seriously saying that running a business without complying to regulations is a civil right?
Yes, the regulations can be argued to be whacky, but I don't see how they infringe on civil rights. Rosa Parks couldn't stop being African American but Uber can switch to another business plan.
Yes there is if you believe that customer to be a health inspector and you move set up your shop somewhere else with the intent of evading said health inspector.
See the keyword "intent" there? If your intent with an action is to break the law, the action is illegal.
So give the students fresh, healthy, nutritional food for free and then you can rightfully blame the parents for giving the kid junk. Pointing fingers does nothing, offer an alternative and let the other side shoot it down and you can honestly say you've tried.
With the risk of being snarky, I think the endgame is to make people more productive by using the stick. I.e coercing parents into working harder by threatening to humiliate their child.
In Sweden it's illegal to charge parents for anything as a school. We can do bake sales and such to fund a field trip for example (and if the money isn't raised, they save what was raised and push back the event until next time), but the school cannot base it's budget on parents paying or students paying for things.
Wouldn't it be nice if schools were funded enough to provide every child with a full stomach, which is very helpful when you're trying to learn something, and the adults training to become soldiers would have to pay for their own meals instead?
Or, why not pay for them both with taxes? How in the hell can you expect a child to learn while hungry?
And this is where the tribalism comes in to play. At some point, governments have to do what's fair and not what the angry mob they represents want. White Europeans might've wanted colonialism hundreds of years ago, and to this day some people don't really care when their military commits war crimes against "them".
It's hard for me to sympathise with the view that "the real unfairness here is that people born in miserable conditions are happy to do my job for less, so I'm the victim here".
I didn't say that, I said that even if only a few people could move it could help. You asked "How would that help?"
I'm not saying that remittances from some lucky people who have the means to move are the solution to world poverty, but they help. If you don't want to do anything that helps, but won't solve the problem in three seconds flat without any side effects, then I'm all ears of what your suggestion is?
> How does that help? Letting in a small percentage of the population while the rest still lives in terrible conditions isn't much of a solution.
One word; remittances. They already make up far more money than foreign aid, and the best part is that it's far harder for corrupt governments to get their hands on it. Don't underestimate the passion those few people who enter the country has for their families back home.
The problem with your argument is that it can be applied to births as well; if we allow mentally disabled people to be born, could we not then argue that the benefit is one sided and not the society they're born into?
Basically, what you're arguing is that a person's right to pursuit of happiness is lower than a society's right to flourish. And, also, that the society has the right to choose what types of people are undesirable (by criteria that goes beyond "do you follow the law", because merit and culture includes so much more).
If you're using my data to hijack my traffic, without asking, you could have all the right justifications in the world but you're still a prick. Who knows, maybe your orphanage building app will move me tears once I hear about it and I'll give you free access.