EVs still create a lot of co2 in production so I’d expect it would incentivize people to use and demand more efficient means of transportation. Trains, busses combined with incentives to do better city planning.
EVs aren’t silver bullets. Will still be cheaper to use an EV than a car running on gas.
This will incentivize people to demand affordable transportation, transition to alternatives, get low income citizens a reason to not oppose increased cost of living. Big consumers have to pay, low consumers will pay a little but get more back.
Check out Citizens Climate Lobby.
I’d love it if most folks didn’t go 10-15kmph faster (which seems to be the standard where I live) than the speed limit, but I have no way of changing their behavior on my own. Me going the speed limit on principle might just make it even more dangerous for me and the rest who are speeding. It might be marginal but it adds up over time.
What is safer though? Driving the same speed as the cars around you or have all cars passing you at a higher speed? My guess is the former.
Everyone should get their personal tip app that we can show the person at the counter. “Would you like to give me some tip for buying your goods?”
Totally agree with your sentiment, but how about referring to it as “creative work” instead of “intellectual property”? I think the art and creativity is the missing piece, as studios don’t want to take even a minuscule risk.
Intentions matter, and to what degree you do it in pursuit of money. You do need money to have a sustainable business. But that can of course be to a point where it’s just greedy. Maybe they have gone to far in that respect, I don’t know.
That’s a fairly good analogy, and it did made me this over a bit more. I agree that it would be weird if they put captions behind an extra fee. I suppose captions are more part of the “standard” offering historically so I would definitely just expect it to be included whereas timed lyrics is not something I’d expect by default. But I do an acknowledge that this could shift, especially as this feature enable deaf users to enjoy music. Hopefully Spotify can take the critique and find a good compromise that helps this user group. I just don’t think they thought to do this to squeeze money out of deaf users. I’m guessing it’s more of an unfortunate side effect.
It’s unfortunate and I can empathize with the user but I don’t see it as obvious that this specific need should be catered to, for free. It’s primarily a music service and lyrics is an additional service to enhance the experience, apparently at the paid-tier. It’s not so expensive that it’s inaccessible to the average user, if music with timed lyrics is an important part of their life.
The whole point with features being paid for is that they incentivize you to pay. There is no universal right to have a free tier or certain features for free.
It just makes sense to lock features that users enjoy to incentives them to pay.
How does it make more sense that “cosmetic” features are in the paid-tier? Would it not be the other way around?
A lot of people don’t seem to mind it, but to me it really tastes terrible. Even if I got it for free I wouldn’t drink it.