I'm not even taking into consideration de 2030 part.
But yeah, I generally agree with you. Especially in this:
> But the idea of "I own nothing" cannot conceivable extend to personal items like clothing. That doesn't make any sense ... maybe you wouldn't own tools that are too expensive/specialized to be almost-free.
I don't understand this. As said in other comments, I believe most people wouldn't want most of the things the author describes.
If I want to cook at home and have to order everything, I assume it won't just be there in 5 minutes. And then what? If everything is shared does someone come pick it up when someone else needs it? Do I take it somewhere?
Also, are people delivering these things? Or robots? And how can this be free?
He also mentions that most work can be done at anytime. Well, if the premisse is order everything I need, even for cooking, that has to be done right away, no?
I might be totally off, but this doesn't make any sense to me.
Yeah, I read it correctly but am just now realizing I wrote "tech companies" instead of "big tech companies", my bad.
So this is more a move to preven them from bullying smaller tech companies? I can see it from that angle, but it still seems to me that they want the power to block acquisitions.
For instance, would the following acquisition/merger be allowed: a big tech company acquiring a small company, which the owner wants to sell, that does not influence public welfare?
> "The report also recommends that Congress consider any acquisition by the big tech companies to be anticompetitive unless the companies can prove that the merger would be in the public’s benefit and could not be otherwise achieved."
I'm sorry, what? Two private tech companies cannot merge if they can't prove it is in the public's best interest? Am I understanding this correctly?
What if the influence on public welfare is non existent or minimal, but both companies would benefit from the merger?
This is one of the things that makes me proud to be Portuguese.
Also, does anyone remember the name of the doctor that started this whole movement? I think the first name is João, but I can't remember or find it. I might be tripping, pun intended.
> Conventional thinking is (or was? I don’t follow this closely) that hard shots into the side netting either low to the ground or high up are unstoppable. The goalkeeper cannot reach the high corners, and will not fall fast enough to catch low shots, if the shot is fast enough.
It still is.
When I said that I have an unpopular opinion, it was just referring to the skipping technique.
From what I've read, I seem to have a unpopular opinion as it regards Jorginho and Bruno Fernandes technique (the little skip before shooting).
Skipping before shooting is really dangerous in my eyes. First off, you lose shot power (much more notable in Jorginho's case). Second, the goalkeepers get familiar with it, and start waiting for the skip (Bruno Fernandes changed his technique recently in the Europa League due to this, the goalkeeper almost saved it, only he couldn't due to shot power. If BF skipped, the power would not have been enough).
It could be argued that the panenka is the same thing - if the goalkeeper waits, he saves. However, the panenka does not require the run to be changed, adding to the surprise factor.
All that being said, powerful shot to the side netting is still my go to.
> It's not like this is being advertised when you are subscribing to some service. "Subscribe now and if you ever want to cancel, we'll make you pay! PS. We know where you live."
They could at least ask. But I understand your point.
> What could the consumer do apart from relying on word of mouth to avoid such services?
I'm not sure I understand you. Are you implying you can't follow the news without using these services? Only through word of mouth? If that's what you mean, there are ways to follow the news while avoiding paywalls. I do.
In my (little) experience, Rick like developers can cause lot of trouble if they simply decide to leave.
I do think, though, that you can spot them fairly easy. Even in college. I had a very skilled classmate that wrote code only he could understand, without any comments. Of course, we could eventually understand it, but it would cost us hours.
Some teachers actually refused to grade his exercises if he didn't start commenting his code. I still believe they did this to instill in him this habit, but I'm sure it was hugely helpful to them as well.
But yeah, I generally agree with you. Especially in this:
> But the idea of "I own nothing" cannot conceivable extend to personal items like clothing. That doesn't make any sense ... maybe you wouldn't own tools that are too expensive/specialized to be almost-free.