You are not arguing against his point though, you are shifting it.
His point is that it has been paid and you are saying the same thing. His argument is not about who paid the bill (if it was you or the bank) the argument is that it was paid and you seem to agree with that I think?
€ A different way of putting it is to imagine you had 0$ and a job that pays you in two weeks. Now you cannot take any credit since that means the bank pays for you (so the money comes first then the work).
What do you do now to survive two weeks? The answer is that you need money to be able to work, not the other way around.
I think the argument is not that you are not working for money, it's that within the first two weeks that you worked you already payed bills. In a way that means you provided the capital before you did the work. So the money always comes first, which is the basis for his argument. The company then pays you which allows you to keep paying your bills but you cannot pay your bills with future income, hence money always comes first and thus allows you to work in the first place
The difference is only a theoretical though, you would not be able to circumvent taxes by saying I'm not getting paid, I am only compensated with a Bank account which has a limit of $x every month. So yeah, there is a theoretical difference but not a practical one.
But the argumentation is kinda strange, if you think you are not compensated correctly you could always get a job and leave child/elder care to somebody else. If you don't want that, it seems that you are ok with the compensation. If your partner does not want that, the problem is not the unpaid work but the gender roles. If you can't get a job which pays more that you would spend, one could argue that you are probably compensated fairly.
> A woman that loses her home because her husband gets fired from his job now has no compensation through no fault of her own.
This is imo a valid point, because she would still have to do the work without compensation (even though as both don't have paid work they would hopefully share the work)
It's funny but one of my first contact points with iOS (after owning a 3gs some years back) was when I tried to fix the mail settings for a friend and I had the exact same problem described here.
After finding out that you have to add the account via settings it kinda makes sense, but the first thought is: you have an email account, you have an email app, of course you add the account in the app, why would it be anywhere else? The account and the app could not possibly be more directly related to each other.
If you already know how accounts are managed in iOS you will think this is fine, but it is absolutely not intuitive, let alone easy to understand for people who do not know about sso and shared accounts.
I did not laugh at others misfortune or moral failing but at the following sentence "the US feels like the only place where users have the freedom to choose what their internet should be". I do not laugh at people having only a single choice of ISP or the abolishment of NN, but at the blindness with which that statement was made. If by "users" ISPs are meant then I agree, but let's be real, users often don't even have a real choice of ISPs, let alone what "internet should be", whatever that means.
With the rest of what you wrote, I don't even know what argument you are referencing. Was it that I said the internet is shitty? Nowhere did I say that you can't access a website so Im not exactly sure why you want to test access to websites or state that you can stream video. Is that all it takes for you to say that your internet is "working just fine"? Maybe I understand that statemend a little wider than you do, so let me elaborate: When I say "it's really shitty" I mean more than just accessing websites, I mean bad industry practices, non competing ISPs and no or limited choice of ISP, total surveillance, rampant data collection by big companies, etc.
For me this is not a sign of a "fine" working internet. But if you limit it to "I can access websites" then I agree with you.
To your last point, I never asserted that your Internet is slow or that you can't access sites, so I don't know why you keep misstating my comments.
Well last I heard ISPs were not providing top service to say the least. So unless "working just fine" means "it's really shitty but hey we have internet", I would say that no, the internet is not "working just fine" at least from that perspective. I don't know why you think removing net neutrality laws was a good idea but maybe you can elaborate.
Laughing truly makes me feel better and distracts me from my worries, I don't know why you have to be condescending about it. I did not say that I think filtering is a good idea, the contrary is true.
I just think saying that the EU pass regressive internet laws, while the US is the beacon of freedom and choice is laughable.
I almost had to laugh after the US just recently abolished Net Neutrality. And what is the grind with cookie notices and GDPR? I very much like to know what companies can do with my data, what data they have and demand deletion of it.
This is not against companies, it's for people. Companies should have had these information in the first place, now they just need to display it to the user but I guess thats too much to ask.
Im all against filters but cookie notices and GDPR are consumer friendly laws which I like a lot.
€ A different way of putting it is to imagine you had 0$ and a job that pays you in two weeks. Now you cannot take any credit since that means the bank pays for you (so the money comes first then the work). What do you do now to survive two weeks? The answer is that you need money to be able to work, not the other way around.