I did some quick research because I wouldn’t consider buying one that needed wifi access or app control to work. It looks like some can work w/o ever being connected. The functions are limited like not being able to just clean a single room. Probably down to use case if you need the app functions or not.
Edit: If anyone has real experience it would be great to hear.
No. A logical fallacy is when I make a mistake in logic.
We all do it, but you can chose to be a grown up when it is pointed out. Your logical flaw was of analogy. You compare freedom of speech to protections around search and seizure (correctly) and those to internet bans/theft incorrectly. When you do that you confuse two bodies of law that are almost entirely separate. btw trying to side track into the topic of enforcement actions on individuals is another logical fallacy. Look it up, or don’t and just whine when people call you out.
And perhaps the Constitution needs to be updated.
Currently in the US, freedom of speech has an undisputed legal definition. Update the defining legal document. When you are successful, you will have been right all along.
What is going on here is that you, with your deficit of imagination and burning compulsion for status quo
Make whatever assumptions about me help you make sense of your world. It says way more about you than it ever could about me that you feel the need tell me what I am thinking in your first response.
If the government may not conduct an unreasonable search of your home, would you then permit a gang of unruly citizens to toss your house
This is a logical fallacy. Illegal search and seizure applies to the government. Breaking and entering and theft apply to individuals. In the US one is prevented by the constitution (like freedom of speech) and the other follows local laws. They aren’t the same.
The low income worker wants more money in their pockets not more free time
All people want is more money? Any other benefit is not worth recognizing? This is not the world that I live in. People around me want to spend time on themselves (like looking for better work). They want to have waking hours with their families and friends. Extra time is a good thing even if it doesn’t also put more money in your pocket.
literally it’s purpose.
No its purpose is to make people’s lives better. The mechanism is raising hourly wages at the bottom of the pay scale. You’re conflating how with why.
Did you even read…clearly stated…
Yes. I have read the article and each of your replies at least twice before responding and clearly stating something doesn’t make it true or worth responding to. You (and the article) make the leap from a population study to individual consequences. It is a common problem with the interpretation of studies. I pointed my response at the the actual issue instead of rehashing how research works when applied to the real world.
Again if you read what I wrote…
Again, I read, waited, and re-read before responding. I want to think you’re better than resorting to making your point by claiming someone else’s ignorance, but I have two instances in the same response to tell me otherwise. I’m out.
the whole point of minimum wage is to give low income people more funds
You’re right that minimum wages are sold as putting more money in people’s pockets. I can see why you would focus on that benefit, but the whole point is to make people’s lives better. If someone offered me the same amount of money for working 20% fewer hours, I would take it. Assuming minimum wage doesn’t put more money in workers’ pockets, it improves quality of life by giving back time over the status quo.
black market… increased crime
Again, status quo is what it is. Individuals won’t be making less money. Same money + more free time = huge black market increase?
taxes
A progressive tax policy was just an example of something other than typical rich people/corporation cuts. My point is that the people publishing this article have an expressed intent to advocate for the reduction of taxes. In the US that means exactly what you’ve said - a reduction of taxes on the rich cloaked in the lie of helping everyday people keep more of their money. I brought it up as a reason to be skeptical of the conclusions they draw.
So?
Context for their statements.
having their wage fall is bad
The study they cite doesn’t say take home pay falls. It says take home pay stays the same and hours are reduced. I agree that isn’t meeting the goal of raising wages, but it does allow more free time for workers. That is especially important where minimum wage earners have to work multiple jobs. Imagine telling some working 3, 20 hour a week jobs that they could make the same amount of money working just 2 of those jobs, but the policy is bad because they won’t make more money overall.
unless the key reasons for the high cost of living [are addressed]
Yep, obviously this isn’t a cure all for income inequality. There are systemic issues that need to be addressed.
excessive red tape and high taxes
Cut taxes and reduce regulations doesn’t have a history in the US for helping people in lower income brackets. Replacing current taxes on the poor with higher taxes on the rich? That might work. I also don’t believe ‘let us develop more land and the cost of living will go down.’ Everywhere I have seen that in practice megadevelopers get rich creating suburbs. Maybe it would be a net good if the houses were allotted and free of cost to the Native Hawaiians who have been waiting decades for housing they have been promised to become available.
From their mission statement: “The Grassroot Institute of Hawaii is a nonprofit policy research organization that seeks to educate people about the values of individual liberty, economic freedom and accountable government.”
Other places describe them as a “conservative think tank.”
My favorite part of the article is when the site a study saying that the response to minimum wage increases was that people had hours reduced to offset the increases. Same pay for less hours? Seems like a win for the worker even if it is not a net gain in money.
Reading the comments I wanted to point out why this isn’t just an IoT/stupid modern life/inconvenience issue when it comes to tractors.
Most farmers live on very thin margins. Making those margins requires good timing for things like planting and harvest and everyone in your area will be trying to do the same thing as you at about the same time. Getting your tractor throwing an error code or whatever that stops work becomes a year ruining, bankruptcy inducing problem if you can’t get it fixed quickly. Pretending that there is a good, qualified repair technician in your area you might be days down the list for when they can get to you. This pushes the timeline of your essential task and eats away at your ability to make any living just through delay.
This is why people pushing right to repair use tractors as a selling point. They are absolutely essential to the farming they are used for and in the US there is a strong mythos that has been built around farmers that lets the issue resonate.
I totally agree about all of the other DRM uses being bad, but using the perception of taking away the independent, practical, hardworking farmer’s ability to do work on their own however it needs to get done hits many people’s guts a lot harder than IoT crap not maintaining its usability.
Tldr, if you want to sway people on DRM stick to examples that feel impactful to them.