I'm pretty sure someone was expecting that we were addicted to that $100B trade, and by throwing a 15-999% tariff on it, 15B-1.5T of fresh taxes were going to be generated. With a 40% drop in purchasing, that's going to translate to a lot lower tax intake than expected. The price for that will probably be more inflation, but the powers that be have shown very little concern over using other, more nuclear options (possibly even literal nuclear options), for handling budget shortfalls.

Exciting times!

Oh, that explains why I didn't read it.

Amateur. It's more like:
*drops to knees* KHAAAAAAAAAAAAANNNNN!

And that is the assumption you made. The article specifically mentions "affiliates, parents, or subsidiaries” accounts. The way I read it, if you owe Apple money, Apple is not asking Epic Game Store for the money. If you have multiple accounts, Apple is not limiting withdrawing from the main account. Banks have done this where overdrafts on checking gets pulled from savings or other accounts. I would assume if the amount owed exceeds money in all accounts, then Apple would use a third party debt collector.

Where in the world did you read that Apple "can arbitrarily make up a number"? The article says that IF a developer owes Apple money, Apple can pull the funds not from the developer's primary account but other accounts the developer might have. For example if a developer has a separate account for two apps and one of them is in the red, Apple can withdraw money from the other account.

If I read the article correctly, Apple will go after debt that a developer owes them by withdrawing from other accounts that developer might have. If the developer has "affiliates, parents, or subsidiaries" accounts, then Apple will get the money from them. How is that a debt collector again which is normally someone recovering debts for a third party?

It is right there on the label. Their sympathy is always on the side of capital.

They're up-front about it, and if you're aware of the bias, they're probably the best national paper in terms of factual business reporting. Just skip the editorial page, it consists of almost entirely of indulging the resentments of the geriatric rich.

Sure, like people crave sugar. But change the balance of nutrients and you change the body composition.

Sure, mankind isn't going extinct over this. But nature operates in a very brutish manner. If I can avoid health problems by popping a multivitamin or something, I want to know that.

I agree that in theory it is entirely possible to reuse DC cooling water.

I also maintain that this will not, in fact, happen.

This is the same game politicians constantly play. Sure, passing this law means closing the factory which will will put thousands out of work. But we could offer retraining opportunities! We won't, but we could.

Maybe we'll finally see a return to real film. I'll dig up my ole, trusty 500C/M from the basement just in case.

I dunno about you, but I still scan my film negatives out of my Hasselbland 500 CM.....so even with shooting on film, it ends up on the computer in the end....

So, what would be wrong with an actor or actress selling their scanned image WITH contractual obligations to be PAID whenever the image was used in a film or when used as source to generate a new digital actor?

Wouldn't continuing pay and residuals help make the argument here?

I can't tell if you're intentionally being dense or not.

Suppose that water headed for California almond farms instead was diverted to Arizona golf courses. What's the problem, right? Not like the water was destroyed or something.

You may as well ask, what's the problem with inflation? Not like money is destroyed when you spend it.