That’s certainly possible, but by no means guaranteed, right? If someone selling goods to the US is selling out (supply-limited) the rest of the global market might absorb the US share. But one might wonder if that was the case, why would they be selling to the US in the first place. I would, by default, assume that losing the US market reduces demand for any given non-US export, and the amount that it hurts depends on how big the US market was compared to the non-US market.
This isn’t the first time tariffs have been used in a country to push purchasing preferences. The problem is that it hurts them and it hurts us, it’s just a net economic drain and doesn’t effectively achieve the local economic boost that some want it to, especially in today’s global economy where trade has become so integral that we no longer produce many of the products we buy, and therefore tariffs can’t fix. “There is near unanimous consensus among economists that tariffs are self-defeating” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tariff
Not all things are that fungible. Cars intended for the US won’t be sold elsewhere. And in a mature market, no new customers exist elsewhere to sell to.
There's an entire world to trade with. If the Americans choose to shoot themselves in the foot, we won't be the ones paying for the bandage.
Also, it's deeply naïve to assume tariffed countries would absorb the cost. Why would they? It's like going into a shop and asking for a discount because you just took out a loan. Why would the shop give you a discount for something you inflicted on yourself? And what makes you think other customers wouldn't ask for the same discount?
Also see recent trade deal between Canada and China. And of course Canada and the EU have a trade deal. And Merz was visiting India recently so there are also trade deals between India and the EU coming. In short, everybody is trading with everybody.
The US might have an easy to choice to make after Trump. Regardless of who takes over. Simply roll back tariffs and instantly boost the economy. The protection aspect of tariffs will probably have proven to be mostly counter productive by then.
At least I don't see the US car industry doing any better when it can't export. Coal probably won't ever recover from being obsolete, etc. I think this mostly won't be controversial a few years down the line.
> The US might have an easy to choice to make after Trump. Regardless of who takes over. Simply roll back tariffs and instantly boost the economy.
I’m afraid it won’t be so easy. Countries deeply distrust unreliable trading partners. Europe will prefer to keep trading with Mercosur rather than risk trading with the US. If the US wants to trade again, it could; but at a price that justifies the risk.
I bought a mini PC today. On the US website, it goes for $460, on the German website it goes for 360 euros or $420. But that price includes 20% tax so its actually $335.
Prices for the same product are about 37.5% higher in the US. It's nuts and the reverse of how it used to be not long ago.
I was intrigued by what you have said, because I have also bought an ASUS NUC mini-PC today, in Europe.
I paid EUR 510, which means $593. This is with all taxes included, so the price without tax would be about $490.
I have searched now the ASUS mini-PC on Newegg, and its cost is $679, around +38.5% more expensive.
This is wild, because indeed, until recently the price of electronics devices was significantly lower in USA in comparison with Europe, while now it is the reverse.
This is not a "Made in China" mini-PC, which might have been affected by worse tariffs.
Moreover, I have equipped the mini-PC with 32 GB DDR5 & 1 TB SSD, while cursing the more than triple price of DDR5 compared with last summer, so that now the DRAM has been more than a third of the price of the complete computer.
This configuration has cost me the equivalent of slightly less than $900, without taxes. The same configuration has a price on Newegg of almost $1200.
It's because adding new shiny features is fun and adding accessibility is boring, and most people in the free software world are there to have fun. That's also why bugs are always forgotten while people keep piling new features.
I also think it's partly because adding accessibile interfaces is hard.
If you are not visually impaired then designing then when designing a visual interface for an application you are more-or-less designing for yourself. You know how to use visual interfaces, so it is relatively easy for you to evaluate whether you've done a good job.
Most people do not know how to use a screenreader, so if you're designing for a screenreader then it's going to be much harder for you to test the interface and evaluate whether it's actually usable by it's target audience.
I'd also love to see more educational resources on this topic. Not just "use this attribute/role for this use case", but "this is how using a screenreader works. This is an example of a good workflow . this is an example of bad workflow". There's tons of material out there for visual design, but I haven't come accross nearly so much for other interfaces.
It’s not a free and open source issue, it’s a general issue in product development.
Whereas in free software, people develop apps to have fun, in business product development, teams always try to ship a feature that is the highest leverage, and making the app work well with screen readers is usually not the highest leverage item, unfortunately.
It's an awful demo. For a simple quiz, it repeatedly recomputes the same answers by making 27 calls to LLMs per step instead of caching results. It's as despicable as a live feed of baby seals drowning in crude oil; an almost perfect metaphor for needless, anti-environmental compute waste.
I have been using breezy weather and I like it overall. But after reading this article I can't help but be bugged off that the information density in the main page is significantly worse here than in Dark Sky.
Dark Sky showed hourly forecast with a 2h resolution. This is a negligible difference in precision IMHO (weather predictions are inherently imprecise anyway - and a more precise graph could be - is - one tap away), but it allows to show a time range that is twice as wide! On my screen, breezy weather is able to show me the forecast for the next 5h until I scroll - this is OK, but it's annoying. The hours are very spaced apart, and there is a 1h resolution. With tighter spacing and 2h resolution, 12 or 16 hours could be displayed at once - which is far more likely to cover the time I am going to spend outside, which as the article states, is the main reason why I might want to check an hourly forecast anyway.
All the other android apps mentioned here have the same issue.
I might try to open an issue in their GH, or even a PR... A toggle for "denser graphs" and a setting for hourly resolution could do wonders.
reply