roguetrick

In many parts of the states they do because their insurance won't cover them working on those bikes.

Stingy on letting you make your own vape but happy to let you stuff your lip with snus. Typical Sweden.

Most will not repair an ebikes outside of the brand they sell. I'd ask the shop first.

Can't buy nicotine from the wholesalers anymore to do that in the US. Feds made it illegal.

You pretty much should only buy one from a shop that has a physical location near you and can do repairs. Like everybody around me sells Trek, so if I ever got one, it'd be a Trek with a Bosch motor. Bike shops will not repair ebikes they don't sell, even though they'll repair regular bikes. And neither Trek nor Bosch are going anywhere.

I don't know what the age metric has to do with anything.

What he's saying is not beyond what Congress has previously laid down though. First sale doctrine should let you do whatever you want, but they actually banned renting phonographs because they thought people were recording them on tape. We're lucky they didn't outlaw movie rentals too back in the day. Whole copyright regime needs to die in a fire.

aren’t delivering on the promised economic activity

There doesn't exist a company that gives a flying turd fuck about a government's revenue. Particularly not if they took tax breaks to reduce that revenue in the first place.

Any employer that's a union buster deserves to be boycotted until they close and something better comes along to fill the need (which it will do quickly). In truth, the grocery supply chain/warehousing being so strongly coupled with the supermarkets is the primary point of inertia in the US regarding grocery stores opening where they're needed. Most independent distributors only focus on restaurant contracts, because they can achieve higher margins there.

Edit: Not that coop distribution doesn't exist. For example https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Associated_Wholesale_Grocers who are represented by the teamsters in four of their distribution centers.

They haven't had a problem in NZ and Aus.

It's the courts themselves that would have to break them up, so it's not an issue there. It's just a very high bar to clear because the courts don't care about anticompetitive practices unless it has a detrimental effect on the consumer. You'd be hard pressed to argue that things like YouTube and Gmail coupled with the cloud service, the ad service and the phone service are causing actual harm to the consumer that competition wouldn't. I don't see how YouTube would survive in its current form if it used third party ads, hosting, and CDN, the same way prime video and twitch are very dependent on Amazon Web services. Back in the day, for example, interurban electric trolleys were often owned by power companies. They used the power company's right of way for the electric lines for the tracks too and of course their power. That's anticompetitive, but frankly good for the consumer. That said, I wouldn't be sad to see it burn in a fire either.

I doubt choosing to stick up a vehicle covered in cameras with someone who likely isn't even carrying cash is anyone's idea of a good payoff.