May very well be [continued] coercion.

"Some things are simply more important than revenue ​cycles, clickbait, and pre-IPO valuation. America First. Always," Davies said.

Too bad you can never trust what the current gov claims. Only the inner circle knows what the real reasons are.

Not being required to block for US citizens is pretty bonkers, too, from a security perspective. Blocking it entirely is the right call; the only call that makes technical and security sense.

As for the "expert opinions", I'm still wondering if that claim is driven by the publisher and widespread PR, or fundamentally correct or factually confirmed by the hands-on technical experts. Some opinions seemed skeptical, at least.

positive_news@lemmy.ca

To look at paintings?

Honestly, that's what I would need in my life/something that would do me good

Platform A has a 40% fee and requires price elsewhere to be the same. Manufacturer X sells their own product on their own website, at +40% their price.

This is bad for buyers and competition. Platform A is already big and important enough that you can't skip it, and can drive up and control pricing generally.

If the requirement were not there, if platform A does not offer enough plus service for the 40% margin, other platforms would keep the prices at a reasonable level. People could buy from the manufacturer at their original price.

A marketplace important enough that you can't skip it being able to dictate market conditions is how it manifests itself further as the primary player and controlling instance.

With wireless microphones, maybe you can keep talking on the toilet. The company could even provide you with a laptop or tablet to take with you. D:

Prime opportunity to leave some toilet paper on the receptionist's desk after each visit.

rewards like new running shoes?

It only makes sense if

• you want to drive up adoption because
  • you're confident in usefulness already
  • want to find out about usefulness and need the userbase and usage for it
• you have ulterior motives to push for AI adoption

I can imagine leadership - disconnected from real work and any practical AI use experience - being misinformed and misguided into believing marketing and hype-cycle about gains. It also doesn't seem implausible that leadership wants to drive up adoption to quickly gain feedback and results about usefulness and gains/loss.

In good faith, it requires a certain mindset (no care about the waste or potential loss or risk) and distance from practice. Not implausible, though, in my eyes.