wwtrv

Care to explain? Besides the accidental 5 of course.

You did include both of these in the same comment, though:

Would this also ban spam filters? Fraud convictions? But these are straw men

Anyway, at least in the US (but I also assume similar provisions in other countries as well) the 5th amendment generally only applies to the government, not companies and private individuals (in a way you deciding to "censor" someone is an expression of your free speech).

In reality they have a somewhat limited say in who the Commission president is going to back and almost no influence on its members. Compared to most national parliaments it's extremely weak and quite pointless.

It's pretty much a joke, it can't propose any legislation since it doesen't really control the "EU government". The could be a majority in the EU parliament that would support passing specific legislation and they couldn't do anything about that, not even have an actual vote.

She was appointed by the EU parliament

IMHO that would be perfectly fine on its own (or do you think that any parliamentary state is not a "real democracy"?).

But the problem is that she was appointed by the Council/National governments and the parliament just rubber-stamped their pick. If the relationship between the Parliament and Commission were the same as between the parliaments and governments of other countries it would be perfectly fine.

"real president"

You clearly don't speak French? What's a "real president" anyway?

Also if we go that route you do know that the e.g. German, Italian, Greek etc. "presidents" are also not elected directly?

The role you're talking about is more like that of the Speaker of the House in the US or the UK. Both are elected by members of the chamber, not a popular vote.

Not really. The commission president is certainly (not even remotely) the equivalent of the Speaker in the British parliament (maybe a slightly closer in the US).

Not even Prime Minister would be a real equivalent since the commission isn't appointed by the parliament and it has relative very little say in what the commission does. In certain ways it's not fundamentally that different from some of the pseudo-democratic European states in the 1800s where the job of parliament was only to rubber stamp the laws written by the appointed government (of course there is no equivalent of the King/Emperor).

Really? Some cartel operatives believe their actions are justified for some greater good? Well unless you count filling your own pockets a "greater good" then they are objectively extremely deranged and delusional which possibly makes them even more dangerous.

relies on the perspective of the participant though Parents point is that ‘bad’ is a matter of perspective, and that right or wrong,

Not really, though. Some things are just 'bad' (you or the perpetrator might not agree but that doesen't change that fact).

They'll buy a $20 blender that will die in a year rather than the $100 blender that will last a lifetime.

One problem for consumers is that often it's very hard to tell which is which. There is no guarantee that a $60 item won't just be overpriced garbage which is as bad (or worse if they spent much of that money on unnecessarily complex features that reduce reliability) as the $20 one, so always picking the cheaper item that superficially might seem good enough is not necessarily irrational.

(of course this doesen't necessarily apply to all brands yet)

The idea is (well according to France at least) that they'll monitor those chats and report the suspected "criminals" to the government.

Is there a check box to state that you are a criminal when you message someone

I assume they'd could check for specific keywords or use perceptual hashing for images etc.

And your point is? Generally only unelected officials are allowed to formulate or propose EU policy (the EU "parliament" is only there for rubber stamping it) how is that similar to most countries?

Telegram is end-to-end encrypted in private chats

Not by default (unlike the other services you've mentioned )?

Benjamin Franklin

Supposedly that's not his quote though?

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41342251

Well in Telegram's case the idea is that they knowingly provide taxi services to those criminals and do supposedly nothing when it's reported to them because they are "too small" to moderate everything

Unelected officials = experts

What? Not in the commission. It's a 100% politically appointed body made up of politicians, it's just not elected.

Also even on the lower levels being an "expert" EU apparatchik has absolutely nothing to do with dedicated your life to science.

In any case it's a deeply flawed system, minimum oversight and a lot of money to spend/waste can't ever lead anywhere good.

And battery life with most laptops (even the Framework) is pretty horrible on Linux compared to Windows without excessive tweaking (and even then).

To be fair from the perspective of most consumers what downsides does the Air have that are only there because it's an "ultrabook"?

and the pricetag at 2-3x a similarly-performing windows equivalent, and probably +50% on similar screen windows equivalent.

Can you actually list any of these "equivalents"? I'm actually genuinely curious

Just to get this straight you're saying that you can get a Windows laptop that's just as fast, has comparable battery life and build quality as an M3 Air for $400-650 (i.e. 1/3 - 1/2 of the cheapest 16 GB Air)? Really?

Unfortunately it is far too easy for a non-savvy person

So could you help those of use who are not that savvy by being more specific?

people's life would be better with a decent-travel keyboard

Most people don't generally seem to agree with that, though (not explicitly, they just generally don't prioritize things like that)

will arbitrarily use 2-3x idle power draw while on battery for no apparent reason

You might be thinking about Linux? IIRC OS X wasn't particularly impressive about that back in the x86 days and high-end Macs had horrible battery life.

Why? It would just seem silly not to take include the fact the CEO of the company you are relying on continuously behaves in an erratic and unpredictable manner (and is also trying to undermine democratic institutions but that's besides the point...) into your risk estimates.

They are only expensive and desirable because of these people.

Calculators also had a track record of shattering human benchmarks.

Also saying something like:

has a sound theoretical basis

Without backing it up at all hardly makes much sense...

Stock buybacks are basically just more flexible dividends. Companies used to payout way more in dividends in the past now they do buybacks instead.

If they can fire 80% most companies should

What's special about "them"? Twitter was technically never a particularly complex product that required some kind of exceptional talent. Not even remotely in the same ballpark compared to what Intel is doing (or trying to do anyway...)

Personally if they are selling around USD500 - USD600 well especially in developing countries.

Why? They can already buy a Lenovo/HP/etc. laptop for <500$, FHD and 16 GB RAM (and most in that price range seem to have upgradeable storage/memory).

I'm not sure the $50-100 or so saved on the CPU would be enough to significantly improve build quality or a much better screen.

The N100 just just doesen't seem to have that many advantages over something like:

https://www.cpu-monkey.com/en/compare_cpu-intel_processor_n1...

Yes, you get to save 5-15W or so, but you get a much slower chip with a way worse GPU. Still seems very niche.

it will be selling like hot cakes

I strongly doubt that. Otherwise premium (by Apple standards at least) or midrange specs laptop but with a slow CPU wouldn't be that popular.

It makes sense in a very cheap (< $300) device but add 32 GB of RAM, a decent screen and chassis and it would be competing with significantly more expensive laptops with a proper CPUs. Seems like an extremely niche product.

They won't be able to test exhaustively every failure mode that could lead to such issues.

That might be acceptable. My point is that if you are incapable of having even absolutely basic automated tests (that would take a few minutes at most) for extremely impactful software like this starting with something more complex seems like a waste of time (clearly the company is run by incompetent people so they'd just mess it up)

Are you mentally ill?

Is that really necessary? Also I'll second it, your comments are objectively xenophobic.

never about Scots, either

Considering there are 10x less of them not particularly suprising...

And yes, other monkeys are murderish assholes, too

Germans specifically (the British never even came close historically...). Or you won't say it?

Cagots didn't really have an option of assimilating besides moving to a different region, that's what was special about them. Jews on the other hand ussually would do reasonably fine after converting. Of course it varied a lot by location/period and belonging to a group or a specific community was very important in premodern societies. You'd lose your entire support network and while you might be lucky enough to live in a place were other Christians wouldn't be throwing rocks at you you'll probably never be fully accepted (your grandchildren etc. might).

To be blunt, if that hadn't happened, the Jews would have probably disappeared into the general European population by the 15th Century

That seems like a bizarre claim... If anything the attacks, discrimination etc. would have encouraged assimilation. Voluntary conversion to Christianity wasn't particularly uncommon either (forced violent conversion also occurred). Even when national governments started expelling their entire Jewish populations staying and getting to keep all of your property ussually was an option. Yet most chose to leave rather than convert.

Yes, converted Jews might have faced discrimination and even violence (this depended a lot on the willingness to abandon your old customs and practices and varied hugely based on time and place, but seemingly became a bigger issue at the very end of the middle ages) but ussually they managed to more or less fully assimilate in a few generations.

And then, once again, Europe blames the groups it refuses to accept.

Can you explain in what way did this manifest in Sweden for instance? Or have any data/evidence besides some semi-vague claims about antisemitism and some immutable characteristics of European societies (which are hardly monolithic to begin with).

It's not that I even necessarily disagree with what you're saying but unfortunately your comment is 80% demagoguery and 20% substance.

Why is it that economic migrants do, after a few generations, become successfully integrated in America, while they tend not to in Europe?

Possible different population samples that don't overlap as much? By and large (unless you're crossing the Mexican border I guess...) immigrating to the US has been significantly harder than to the EU even if you're educated/relatively high skilled. The US can afford to be much more picky.

One might ask: Was that the Jews' fault? Or the host society's fault?

There are 2x more Jews in France than before WW2? Guess from where most of the threats/attacks towards them are coming? (hint: not the host society).