HN user
pivot conversations when someone asks you about something you actually know or are good at, it might be a trick, tell them you're dumb instead
Spot on, can relate to that :)
Why were you trying to dox the archive owner?
Build it underground if feasible, or build a parking garage with high-economic-contribution units in upper floors.
That's because a government-run LLM would be like government-run media.
High inflation? No, the government LLM will tell us we're doing great.
I understood it as out of a few thousand songs, Deezer only failed to match 2.
Companies exist to provide jobs. Not only to make money for the owner and externalise all the negative effects on society.
I think it's safe to say that the one who starts something has the privilege to make the call on its purpose. And I'd bet most if not all people who start companies do so in order to make money for themselves, and providing jobs is a means to that end.
So, if a company could make profit without employing a single person, it would still serve its purpose.
I guess a lot of people feel that if they didn’t have the ability to know about all relevant products and services, the quality of their lives wouldn’t suffer.
Such regulation would inevitably introduce exceptions for products with limited-time use (because it doesn't make sense to support everything forever), manufacturers would explicitly mark all products as such, and consumers wouldn't even find it wrong.
New incentives to would hit market reality where most people want cheap devices, not lifetime support for something they themselves consider practically disposable.
If most consumers don't care, regulation won't help. Much like climate change.
How does it work?
I think it's the mass immigrations that (some) people are calling out as not in their own best interest, without necessarily believing the immigrants are bad or in any way worse humans than themselves to call it racist.
OK, so like on my X account where I publish names of people on trial.
OK. How am I then not allowed to post here what happened in the court?
The article says “the quantities of material were so small they were safe to eat”
The question is did the authorities know that the materials were harmless in advance, or only after they acquired them?
Don't you think that if it's in the name of the people that the people should have the right to know? Aren't trials public anyway?
Looks like as long as only positive change is allowed to touch the poor, there will be little change.
Because you're a dual citizen.
One shouldn't ever be anxious about such things as being wasteful. Mindful, sure, but not anxious - being anxious about such things is actually a pretty good reason for therapy.
You can buy (and top up) a SIM card without an ID in the EU.
Well, yeah, or else they'll release software with memory leaks, which could become a dependency of some big project and bring down some important things and have real effects on some other people.
Or, yeah, because if my child can access streaming without a child lock, they may not recover from what they see.
Looks like we should protect each other as much as we can, using UI!
One could argue that the potential number of complications in any smartwatch is practically limitless, and also that the sophistication and craftsmanship required to make it, including the hardware part, is the ultimate testimony of refinement and engineering.
If you took an Apple Watch and this Vacheron 2000 years in the past, which one would the people of the time find more impressive (until the juice runs out, that is)? In other words - which one looks more like magic?
We're just used to microprocessors we can't see tick and maybe don't always appreciate the complexity.
There's very high taxation of high income individuals (60%) as well as companies, supported by a big majority of population, which is then used as propaganda by the gvmnt that high taxes benefit everyone because the government knows best what we need. My feeling is that fellow citizens actually support this idea. Those that don't agree find other ways, which is so easy in EU it almost looks like it's by design.
Such an environment is not as business friendly as it seems. Most politicians in this environment see a solution to every problem in new taxes. Hard to talk about freedom, when you're not allowed to vote on taxes.
There's a also a push for truthspeak - younger generations are no longer sure freedom of speech should be sacred, because it wasn't explained as important enough, so they themselves get ideas about what should be censored and why. Again, the gvnmt is quick to agree with them by offering a way to compile a list of truths.
Also, public healthcare in EU is only for the poor - if you can afford to pay private, you're not even thinking about going public. It just doesn't work like some people here thinks it does.
So, no, Europe is not a dreamland compared to USA, it just has a different set of problems.
Shouldn't you be more specific as well, since you're asking that from the parent commenter?
The UK folks don't seem to feel so free to say stuff either: https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/704467
Isn't that how funding works? We give you money, you meet demands. How is that an attack?
The headline is wrong.
Big tech is striking deals for electricity to get electricity.
The entities they're dealing with are accepting deals by which the public will subsidize big tech's electricity.
That big tech is negotiating the way it is, is expected.
That such deals should be available to them is probably not.
No, what I said is that were I to be interested in buying a Volvo, I would've gone to the dealership to see it, and upon finding out that some functionality is available only if I login with my Google account, would tell the dealer that that's a dealbreaker and walk out.
If the car market is such that all car manufacturers are in a way colluding with Google to require such login, that's different and should already be regulated (if not, regulate). But if another manufacturer will sell me what I want, I fail to see the issue for me as a consumer.
But, I'm not against regulation per se (as you've accused me of), so I'm not ready to die on this hill :) You may be right after all.
What's wrong with how normal stores do it? They publish recalls publicly, people check the site, media promotes it, whoever bought it can replace it.
Translation: no one should demand sensible things from companies ever. Because it's either too late, or too far.
Are you trying to make a career of misunderstanding my replies? Or am I just really that bad at writing?
_People_, potential buyers, are _supposed_ to demand sensible things from companies. By voting with their money. Does that not work anymore?
How is "let's make a platform more open and interoperable" a threat to anyone?
It's not and I never said it was. I was replying to your "do unto others" quote which I find is not applicable in this case: I think in regulatory cases you shouldn't assume you know what's best for others (let them vote instead). So, if you say "we're a group of experts, we know you don't need product X, so we're pushing for additional taxation of it" it's a threat. Sorry if I was not clear enough the first time.
But on another note, if I was selling a product based on exclusivity, would regulation forcing me to ditch the exclusive part not threaten my business if it was its main selling point? If people have a choice to buy something else, who am I hurting here and how?
"I know what's best for you: you must switch to Android". The irony.
I was just trying to illustrate that she had a choice. I personally don't think regulation demanding that a game publisher either publish on every platform or on none in order not to discriminate users is needed or positive.
Word of the day: duopoly.
First it was monopoly. Now it's duopoly. Tell me, when there are 3 dominating companies, will there be a "triopoly"?
This is literally one of the government functions: to dictate and force common ground, interoperability, common standards etc.
This makes sense in a lot of cases, but less so when people have choices.
Only if I buy their products does what they do affect me. So it can't be a threat.