TWeaK

You're only considering material cost, not time cost of employing someone to operate the machines. Also your system is not really scalable - it would take a long time per unit, making the labour cost even more significant per unit. There's also R&D, distribution, marketing, etc. all before any profit is made. Also, as you mention, the quality of 3D printed pieces would be much poorer.

This is why it's ridiculous that media in other countries are criticising their politicians for not responding harshly to Trump's tariffs with tariffs of their own.

When America applies tariffs on imports it's Americans who pay them. It affects foreign business slightly, in the form of reduced sales, but the real victims are Americans. When other countries apply tariffs, the main victims are their citizens.

The correct response to someone punching themselves in the face is not to punch yourself in the face.

Yeah I mean I feel like they're just being overly cautious here (as lawyers often are) when in fact there is no real precedent to support that position. The law perhaps could be interpreted to stretch the definition of sale broadly, but in practice it isn't right now.

Frankly, I find it offensive that businesses would choose to pass that minute risk onto the customer by weakening consumer rights.

The artist is Merrivius https://www.webtoons.com/en/canvas/elf-comic/list?title_no=983708

Elf girl is bottom left, the artist begins with M. Their comics are really popular on r/comics.

Edit: The artist is called Merrivius https://www.webtoons.com/en/canvas/elf-comic/list?title_no=983708

Shots fired lmao I bet this tanked on reddit, they're obsessed with their elf girl (and that totally isn't astroturfed).

Cool, I'll give the video a full watch then. I normally don't like Rossmann videos because he takes 30 min to say what he could have covered in 5-10.

But yeah, they shouldn't be doing that. That's selling of data. If they want to sell my data, that I manufactured by my literal blood, sweat, and tears of being alive, they should pay me for it first.

They're not claiming a right to sell data right now, but they have removed the promise to not sell data.

That promise is a canary statement. When the canary dies it's an indication of something, usually that it's time to stop using the product/service.

More specifically, they aren't claiming the right to sell data however they want. However, they do have to follow all legal requests, and they can bill for this provision. If a government compells them to sell they have to oblige.

Maybe it is kinda the same as when Google decided to get rid of the “don’t be evil” statement…

That was exactly what I was thinking of. Although I think there were even better examples with proper canary statements going away in line with the business' alleged joining of the PRISM program.

Consideration does not have to just mean monetary payment

Your statement implies there are other forms of payment than monetary.

Firstly, “consideration” in this context means payment.

My statement did not state monetary payments only, just payment generally. I clarified 2 sentences later with "in exchange for a payment (money or otherwise)". The point I'm making is that "consideration" is a payment in return for something else, and that payment can either be money or any other valuable item or service.

Ahh good ol Rossmann lol. I love him but I hate watching his videos, he goes far too ranty and repeats himself, it becomes hard to extract the real points.

Case in point, the video at your timestamp starts with an After-Before-Whatever rant before getting into any of the meat XD

I think everyone is really missing the points here. It isn't just bad PR, it's so bad that it can only be intentional. They didn't just claim rights and put them back, they removed their pledges to not sell data. The conversation isn't focused on the net result, the loss of the pledge, it's diluted elsewhere.

Maybe they're selling data to governments under law? I'm sure they already have terminology that permits them to do things legally required of them (so they don't need you to give them further rights), and the general process for the tech industry is to protest against such government interference up until the point a contract is negotiated where the government pays for access. In fact, I think this is generally what's happened with other businesses when their canary statements have gone away, as was revealed in the Snowden leaks.

Yes exactly. And that is entirely right and proper.

Nothing of what Mozilla should be doing meets that definition. Even if they share data with 3rd parties to process it, and even if they pay the 3rd party for that service, they're not supposed to get something in return for providing the data. But also, providing data in such a manner does not mean they are selling it.

If they are getting something in return for providing the data, be it payment, other services or even simply a discount, then they're doing something wrong.