It is not wild in their eyes, they need to find a way to justify it after all.
But I think that this way they are opening the door to the possibility to be sued or to be considered responsable for what is on the play store. It is not a stretch to go from "I need to verify your identity" to "you are responsible for what you accept to put on the store". They want control, they will get even responsability.

Because renewables, while cheaper, have their share of problems, the first one is that you cannot (yet and completely) store what they produce. Oil in more something like "on demand" in some aspects, people generally expect that when they want hot water they have it, not that they need to plan when to use it.

Another big problem, actually, is that renewables tends to not be available when you need them the most (this derive from the fact that for now we have limited storing capacity): wind turbines have speed limits to not break and solar panels need at least a certain exposure to produce for example.
Other sources could not be available everywhere or be economically justified.

Nobody really like to pay more, it is simply that for now oil and gas are seen as more reliable than renewables, and this offset the fact that they are more expensive.
This will change in the future, no doubts, but the solution is a lot more complex than simply saying "renewable are cheaper".

As do many people, but there are plenty others who will see this as being punished for doing the right thing, and will be less inclined to do so going forward

Maybe, but I am more optimistic about that.

And what would be the point of doing it right in future.

I do the right thing because it is the right thing and not because I expect something in return. Then I may contest the law because it is stupid or I can follow it to the letter to show how stupid it is.

In the end people that do the right thing will continue, like parents who don't give a damn will continue to don't give a damn about it.

France, like many other EU countries, already has laws that forbid to sell porn and alcohol to minors in the real world.
I will never understand why Internet should have not the same restrictions.

True, but in my opinion social media are not seen as dangerous by a large part of the population, so nobody think that they should teach kids to protect themselves from them.

Personally, I’m of the view that a blanket ban is simply not going to work, and comes with all the same problems of the online safety act, mostly that the government, or the companies they employ to verify ages, simply cannot be trusted with that information.

Government already has your informations, problem are the companies. But in the end I think that the only viable option to have some sort of decent check is that the company try to verify the age with the government, which only answer yes|no.

If control needs to be implemented, it should be in having mandatory parental control options, but ultimately I believe it to be the job of the parents to utilise them, not the government.

Parental control failed time and again. In the end the problem are not the kids who follow what the parents say, but the others. And nowadays it seems that parents, first and foremost, are more than happy to let social media to keep their kid occupied.

Simple:

1. make "no" the default answer when asking
2. massive fine, in the order of 50% of total revenue, the first time you get caught to be paid before the eventual appeal, which if lost raise the fine by 50%. If not paid in 90 days, the CEO goes to jail until it is paid. From now on for 2 years the company must show that it follow the law.
3. mandatory jail time for the CEO the second time you get caught with no option for parole or any other alternative sentence like a fine or whatever.

Or any other solution where the eventual punishment cannot be considered just business cost.

I know, almost impossible... :-(

The problem is that 6000 cycles in laboratory are not the same than 6000 cycles in real life scenarios.

It would be interesting to put that battery out in the field and to see how it perform in real life conditions (assuming that they are cheap enough to be produced in large volumes)

If they are really that good you are right, but there are always a lot of revolutionary advance in lab that never leave it.

Or, maybe, people realized that there is no reason to get a new phone every year.

It is interesting to see how people seems to think that if Ukraine (the victim) surrender everything will be ok while nobody think that Russia (the aggressor) could just stop.

I've seen somewhere else... let me think... oh yes, in the 1930's, just before WWII...

That’s absurd, what is anybody’s source on this claim?

History maybe ?

It is first step. If it will work well, maybe other states will do it.

Wait, they give Europol access if and only if a swiss judge order it. They protect your privacy but neither you or them are above the law.

They went for a retroactive pricing change.

Which in some countries could also be illegal.

At least formally, with US companies there are agreements that the data on european citizen need to stay in EU, with China no

It is inevitable. If you want to sell to EU you need to follow EU's rules.
And UK local market did not justify a dedicated production line, too small

Why pay someone $200k/yeae when someone will do the job for $80k/year?

Assuming the same job's quality, a possible answer is "because to live where your company is you need to be paid $200K/year"

Tell us the real reason for the push to be in the office or get the fuck out of my face.

A lot of middle managers than need to show that they are usefull and not a bottleneck or useless positions

This whole thread is a whole lot of hullabaloo about complaining about legality about the way YouTube is running ad block detection, and framing it as though it makes the entire concept of ad block detection illegal.

Nope, the point is that, at the moment, Google seems to look where it should not look to know if a user has an adblocker and they don't ask for permission.

Let put it in another way: Google need to have my permission to look into my device.

But it doesn’t stop Google from refusing to serve you video until you watch ads.

Which is fine as long as Google can decide that I am using an adblocker without violating any law, which is pretty hard.

Of course Google could decide that it is better to leave EU and it law that protect the users, but is it a smart move from a company point of view ?

Last time did not end well for about 6 million people...