This is ridiculous. I went to university at the age of 14 and was absolutely capable of managing my way through social media at that time - but it became much worse in my early 20s when interest in politics peaked. Maybe interest in politics should be outlawed instead, it’s much more harmful.
If you went to university at 14, which is what... 4+ years earlier then anyone else usually manages? then you really shouldn't extrapolate your own experience on the population at large.
You'd have skipped multiple years in education, hence you'd be massively more intelligent then the general population that this regulation aims to help, (albeit against their own wishes).
What I say is: it’s not age that determines how harmful (and if) social media is. It’s the content that you expose yourself to. There could be ways to retain the benefits of communication networks for adolescents while keeping them away from harmful content - but most parents are too lazy and it’s much easier to ask the government to ban stuff.
>Maybe interest in politics should be outlawed instead, it’s much more harmful.
It's not "politics" that's harmful, it's politicians continuously acting against the interests of the younger generation. Trying to suppress the youth's ability to discuss and organize against that is tyrannical.
Possible in theory, but a Vue→Coi transpiler would be complex given the different reactivity models and syntax.
Most practical approach: AI-assisted conversion. Feed an LLM the Coi docs + your Vue code and let it transform components. For migrating existing codebases, that's likely the most efficient path.
You seem to have very little contact to Russians living in Russia or Germany. Their version of "not in favor of any war" is a very strange one – it's more a stance of indifference than disfavor.
Do you understand that this trick no longer works? When you pretend you don't know about China [1], nobody believes you are being sincere. There are only others pretending along with you. I will not be wasting my words on this charade. Go pretend you have the knowledge of a 5-year-old somewhere else.
[1] Though the advice is generic - no country should let their local tech entirely wither, no matter where it gets moved.
Because all the smart economists in charge stood around doing nothing while industry vanished, and the only one that actually did something was a moron. If your team of doctors is letting the injured bleed out in a ditch, don't complain when someone actually tries to help, but does it wrong.
Also your question has nothing to do with my initial post. It's not even tangential.
If China is the hostile competitor, then why is Trump threatening or imposing 200% tariffs on France[1], 25% tariffs on countries such as Germany and Denmark[2], and random numbers on their friendly neighbors from the north[3]? These are the kind of tariffs the study is about: the trade wars Trump has started with friendly nations. The study is not about China. And so is my question why Denmark is treated like a hostile nation.
P.S.: If you seriously think I didn't know you were referring to China, you need to do some more thinking while reading.
Again you are just talking past me, ignoring what I wrote. I don't know why Trump is doing what he's doing. I was talking about the total lack of guidance coming from economists on how to turn the situation around. My post was two sentences long, and said nothing but that. The only way you could misunderstand it is deliberately.
> If you seriously think I didn't know you were referring to China
I literally accused you of knowing, i.e. "pretending not to understand". I assume you'll find some nonsense tangent or deliberate misunderstanding again, so this is is the last reply you're trolling out of me.
Your speaking of VAT. And even though it’s pointed out on the receipt, it doesn’t mean that the consumer pays all of it compared to a scenario without tax: just imagine you’re a businessman and a VAT of 20% is introduced. Would you be able to increase the prices of all your goods by 20%? For some, maybe. For others with fierce competition and hesitant buyers? Maybe not. The same shows the other way around: imagine a VAT of 20% is abolished. Would you lower all your prices by ~16.6%? Probably, but only for those items that you know your competitors will reduce the price for as well. The terminology to look up is elasticity of supply and demand. There are nice graphs that show the effects of different kinds of interventions.
How can one come to the conclusion that US consumers suffered from the US trade deficit with China? They’ve effectively received free stuff every single year, manufactured by Chinese workers, without paying them. I don’t get it.
reply