danielfoster

The justification for the fine is very arbitrary. The EU did not seem to evaluate the number of listings that Aliexpress blocked or removed promptly, the percentage of counterfeit listings versus total listings, or whether each listing in question was indeed for a counterfeit. I really wonder how many of the listings were duplicates or had no sales. I rarely see counterfeits on Aliexpress these days.

Note that the press release focuses on the number of Aliexpress users as an apparent reason for the investigation but there are is nothing quantifying the harm.

This is highly problematic and reeks of protectionism. The EU is basically saying, “We don’t care how much you brushed your teeth or how healthy they are, it looks like you still missed a few spots.”

I don’t see how a foreign company can ever win once the EU decides it doesn’t like you.

Such a restriction isn’t patently unreasonable but it would make it more difficult for foreign journalists to do research, and it would add the hassle of requiring individuals to show proof of residence when submitting a request. Anonymous requests under pseudonyms would become impossible.

For what it’s worth, only a handful of US states have a residency requirement for FOIA requests.

The €3 customs charge, which is on top of VAT, represents both favoritism toward EU commercial sellers (the tax only impacts individual consumers) and protectionism at its finest. This new surcharge taxes people for buying direct and not shopping at traditional EU stores.

As much as the EU is credited for being pro-consumer, they really care more about the establishment.

Insurers rely on reinsurance (insurance against their insurance) for precisely this reason. And if a disaster bad enough to take out a major insurer happens, it wouldn’t surprise me if the government stepped in.

I just tried Qwant out of curiousity and immediately got a headache from the bright blue-purple color. Its UI isn't as readable as Google and I would find it annoying to use frequently.

Also, shouldn't EU Parliament web browsers follow the same standards as the EU requires of Google-- i.e. users are prompted to choose a search engine after installation?

The top-level discussed a theoretical risk of data being exfiltrated by third parties for training. Other comments discussed contract law and legal remedies, including Delaware’s excellent court system for handling business disputes.

None of this means you don’t have the same rights as an individual to enforce contract terms. I think the top commenters discussed corporate law because that is where most IP theft occurs, and corporate customers have strong contracts covering data protection.

Not every EU country has a high tax burden. Rates are generally much fairer in Eastern Europe and the Baltics.

So I wouldn’t say high taxes are fundamentally European.

I see the challenge here is that the plaintiff surmised there was a faulty “algorithm,” but didn’t have proof until the government published its audit report nearly a year later. I wonder if the claim would have succeeded if she instead simply alleged that the government was improperly allocating school spots on a widespread basis without claiming there was an algorithm.

I don’t think The Guardian’s headline is accurate because the algorithm didn’t win, rather the parent involved didn’t have her day in court at all. Regardless, this is another example of the everyday issues people face (and will continue to face) when governments use technology improperly.

What I find most interesting about this website is that even in 2026, Germany still requires website owners— even hobbyists- to list their name and personal address in the Impressum. So much for anonymity.

This is admirable but the process in Germany right now is overly burdensome. It probably does weed out some bad actors (and good actors) not because of the documents required or any sort of checks performed, but because it takes months and costs thousands of euros.

Again, with all due respect, I’m not seeing how my comment is pushing a “life choice” on anyone, and the movement to restrict alcohol consumption equally qualifies as pushing a life choice on someone.

Commercial pubs have existed for hundreds of year. But drinking doesn’t have to be commercial. In Berlin where I live there’s a non-profit hacker space that has a bar with at-cost drinks. It’s also perfectly legal to buy a beer and sit in the park. And of course, nothing is better than having friends over for a wine tasting.

With all due respect this opinion verges on neo prohibitionist alarmism. The social benefits of alcohol have been widely acknowledged and at a time when we are all spending too much time at home on our phones (arguably worse for health than a pint), communities need more social spaces. That place may not necessarily be a bar and it’s perfectly fine if you don’t wish to drink, but it’s a bit much to refer to a cultural product as a criminal enterprise.

Encouraging the creation of new housing is the way to go. One thought— what percentage of new home purchases are made by large investors and is it growing? This seems like the most important metric to look at rather than existing ownership.

This is a good point. The major issue I see is the BBC is funded by taxpayers through government-mandated contributions, whereas Fox News is a private company.

It sounds like this device could become the iPod Shuffle of AI devices— cute and clever, but not particularly useful.

The last bullet is a good idea but wouldn’t work in practice. Otherwise a company could hire someone else’s H1B worker for $10k more per year and avoid the $100k fee.

As someone who’s always experienced insomnia, will we ever find an effective treatment?

I agree with you, but one point I see everyone missing is the fact that this is a first-time installation of a new technology that hasn’t scaled. There needs to be a business plan of course. At the same time, no one would expect to see ROI figures for the first build of a concept car.

Makes sense now, thank you! I feel like the author should have mentioned this.

I like to think I’m somewhat intelligent, but there’s something I don’t understand here. The article cites an example of pandemic bond holders receiving a return of 40% over 3 years and these bonds being a useful way for the issuer to secure needed funds in the event of a pandemic. Unless a pandemic happens every ~8 years, isn’t this a ridiculous and unsustainable risk premium to pay?

Many US citizens overseas visiting the US do. And plenty of New Yorkers who moved to the city but never updated their license do as well.

They didn’t say which law (the US judge’s order or EU law) they are complying with.

I always felt this way, too. In university I would just go to the professor and tell them person XYZ is being fired from the group.

One area I would like to see more data on is how UBI will be paid for and the impact of this on worker preferences. If taxes increase on medium-high earners to pay for it, you very well could see a drop-off in labor force participation even if it isn’t directly related to the receipt of UBI.

This could be true. One area I would like to see more data on is how UBI will be paid for. If taxes increase on medium-high earners to pay for it, you very well could see a drop-off in labor force participation even if it isn’t directly related to the receipt of UBI.

Interesting tidbit, “ Alcohol consumption was self-reported in this study; it is possible that people underreported the levels of alcohol they were consuming.”

True point, but I question how many people remember the Cold War. It’s arguably no longer relevant.

This is a great explanation. I wasn't previously familiar with these concepts and this is exactly the point I wanted to make. If only a 50.1% consensus is needed at one point in time (either by political will or referendum) to join the EU, the EU could end up with a group of members half-committed to membership. It is then much harder for such a body to make difficult or controversial decisions if members are constantly on the cusp of leaving, and easier for members with lower EU approval rates (such as Hungary) to extract concessions far in excess of their relative power.

I'm all for European unity, but if a country is only half-committed to joining the EU, it probably should not be allowed to join under the assumption that EU support will continue to grow.

Social Security is a Ponzi scheme.