Just makes it look like people jump on the virtue signalling bandwagon when they espouse opinions that aren't broadly consistent with their actions. Like eating beef several times a week, but feeling compelled to bring up the killing of pilot whales in amounts that are not at all concerning from a species conservation point of view.
This is incorrect. They will quite often claim that it is possible to do without breaking encryption, as required for banking and such. They do believe it is possible to have a backdoor that will _only_ be accessible to the government. Completely ignorant of how quickly that backdoor will be found by hostile state actors.
That doesn't seem like holding two opposing thoughts. Why is balancing contradictory actions to optimize an outcome different to weighing pros and cons?
Classic failure to establish a (close to) pareto optimal regulatory structure to avoid ending up in the self-organizing Nash equillibrium which is worse for everyone.
Even if it was retroactive, which it is not, being punished for premeditated tax avoidance can hardly be called unpredictable.
The central difference of opinion is of course whether outright gaming the system is acceptable regardless of the written rules being followed to the letter.
There's not much uncertainty for business really. If you're pulling the moves that Apple and other companies pull to "optimize tax", then you are with 100% certainty trying to game the system and violating the spirit of the law.
A big reason for the Dutch and Nordic populations being better at English than the Germans, Italians, and Spaniards, is that they were simply forced to consume media in English. They had no other option. Turns out to be an advantage.
Localization and dubbing is a sad endeavour. By trying to accomodate everyone's individual preference for information transmission we accomplish nothing more than reducing our ability to understand each other in the long run.
Having a Babelfish is all well and good. Until it stops working, and you realise no one can understand each other any more.
Ironically localization is often pushed by well meaning Americans who only speak one language. "Oh, you're in a French speaking region. You MUST want French language. Let me force it down your throat while I prance around virtue signalling about how inclusive we are"
The terms used to describe the modern technology are derived from early neuroscience going back to the late 19th century. Our understanding of how biological neural networks operate lead to this conclusion. Not the other way around.
I think it is interesting that you are imposing a value judgment on the humanist spiritual belief being better than the "reductionist" one through your adjective usage. It is perfectly possible to live well and enjoy life knowing that you are fundamentally not different than any other object in nature. No higher divinity required.