DisjointedHunt

Are you illiterate or just incapable of entertaining the idea that you might be wrong?

From my original comment : “ the idea of challenging an unjust ruling by entities with a noted history of hostility toward US tech firms. ” in other words, speaking about the European entities including the commission, unelected bureaucrats running agencies as well as the history of successive CJEU rulings usurping the authority of the legislative branch to deem international agreements invalid for exceedingly silly reasons when said legislature undertook successive acts guaranteeing the flow of data between the EU and the US.

If you’re not well informed about the situation in the EU and are winging your argument based on our exchange alone with no appetite or curiosity to educate yourself, it’s pathetic and you can fuck right off.

>Google was, for example, controlling what versions of android manufacturers could put on their devices if they wanted any devices they made to have the Play Store. That does not to me seem like a good thing.

Have you worked in the phone industry? Set foot in a single physical phone store that’s not an Apple Store for more than a tourist visit? Do you know the kind of bait and switch that’s out there for these exact agreements to be formalized into legal documents?

The history of abuse, scams, deliberate overzealous marketing leading to shitty consumer experiences through fragmentation is what those documents address. You know this as well as anyone out there.

You can’t just run a phone company that sells the new A1.5573 Play store model(limited stock, ie 100s only manufactured during a lifetime) while selling the A1.5573e non play store model and confuse your customers by having all your marketing showing the play store phone with the play store apps with the device ID in fine print at the bottom of a 40x40 billboard.

Read the fucking conclusions of the court at least before making stupid statements like “competition on merits, hurr durr”. The court found the commission in violation of preserving the defence the right to be heard by denying them access to evidence and repeatedly so. They actually upheld googles appeal on this count and found the revenue share agreements that underlie the play store install issue to be non abusive.

Again. Fucking read. God gave you the fucking sense to do so and you’re not cattle.

Well, it’s not “anything” now, is it?

The specific findings of the commission and the court here go against any reasonable logic.

The EU seems to love kicking US tech firms while staying silent on anything China does. Ask German businesses who moved manufacturing to China and had their Intellectual property stolen from right in front of their eyes, only to have the EU play pussycat then.

Your comment could certainly use a bit more thought.

It is ABSOLUTELY a regulator and a court system running wild. That's the whole point here.

The commission narrowly defines a mobile OS market and excludes Apple through a selective description of these markets. Read the other comments in this thread for why that is an absolutely dishonest way of defining markets for the purpose of investigating or finding abuse of monopoly power.

Individuals on the committee have openly gone on record calling US tech companies "Evil" and vowing to exact punishment on them far before any investigation had begun. This is the definition of persecution.

An appropriate response to a reasonable government agency enforcement would be met with nothing but applause and diplomacy in international circles. When you look at the history of US tech companies being asked to pay unimaginable sums through very suspect changes in law and court rulings that seem to never challenge the core legal issues that are set on legally suspect ground, there is absolutely a diplomatic objection to be filed. In the interest of protecting the interests of any sovereign nation, that nation may choose to use all options available to it to stop the miscarriage of justice.

The United States and Europe maintain friendly relations through a series of agreements rooted in trust and a shared sense of purpose. When you have idiots and childlike behavior such as this that narrowly carves out a legally suspect standard to target and persecute an important US industry while turning a blind eye to Chinese companies , well . . . that's going to need a lot of re thinking.

As far as scientific advancement goes, you're hopefully smart enough to realize the contributions of all the intelligent work done not just at Google, but in the private sector at large. If not, well, your bias may prevent you from acting rational in this discussion and i wish you well.

The State Department and White House will likely intervene when the EU wants to start using fines as a revenue stream.

Google has been historically targeted by individuals in high ranking roles at the EU who have gone on record calling it their personal mission to harm US tech firms. There is a limit.

If you really took that comment seriously, you have bigger problems to worry about.

Speculating that this did seriously play out and you "fuck with the regulators, they punish you", is that really the accepted cultural take in Europe?

I mean, sure, there is a common sense level of decency in dealing with regulators and not making them madder than need be, but take a look at the United States. A regulator may try asserting more power than they possess and the courts offer a system to at least challenge it and have these excesses checked.

I suppose the point of my comical take was the idea of challenging an unjust ruling by entities with a noted history of hostility toward US tech firms. Trump went aggressive on the EU and threatened to sanction the fuck out of the union if they hit the tech firms or Boeing with fines.

There's always a bigger fish in the pond. The regulators themselves can play this game given Europes historical economic position, but when tech companies deemed important to US national security and honestly scientific progress around the world are put at threat by the squabbling in Brussels, you can bet a stern response from the US will be taken seriously.

I'd ship it in pennies if it were up to me. And lobby the US government for a special issue penny that carries a 99% tax when used.

The EU can suck it.

This is spot on. Code is simply a reflection of a very deep thought process.

Google spends all that money on "taking the everyday problems away" from its engineers so they can spend their time in the deep thought needed to really think about a problem before writing code to reflect their solution.

The fucking bullshit MBA approach of "look busy" is what Google and other tech companies have disrupted through the years.

You're absolutely right in the last statement that this is a hedge by the CEO to prep for uncertainty. I would take that argument a bit further and claim that this is also a hedge to insulate their recruiters and pretty much everyone with connections in the bay area from freely referring candidates from the other sinking ships such as Facebook, Snap and the rest that would dilute culture.

He seems to be giving cover to everyone with the hiring freeze so that they can more readily control the influx of job applications that is happening right now with these other large employers laying of talent very similar to the cohort working at Google.

If your Intellectual Property is used in any commercial setting without reimbursement, that's theft.

Just because you post a link somewhere, it does not automatically waive the commercial interests of the platform you're posting to.

In another strain of the argument, you posting to Facebook and Facebook later choosing to rank and distribute that content to their liking with you having ZERO control over that is the equivalent of using individuals as proxies to steal and propagate content.

You can't just start a website with stolen content plastered all over, say its coming "From the users" and deny any culpability.

Anything this guy writes gets gobbled up and worshipped mindlessly to no end. The opening here was so crass i didn't bother reading the rest (yet) until i find a better time to do so and have put my strong feelings aside.

The News aren't just about distribution, you moron. If we didn't have large companies such as twitter and Facebook misclassified deliberately through government protection and instead called out as the publishers they are, newspapers would be one helluva profitable business line.

Just because economic forces were over ruled in favor of a national security advantage in keeping the American tech industry growing into the massive multinational beast it is, that does not automatically disqualify the hard journalistic effort in contributing to the large subset of content that drives engagement and thus clicks and thus ad dollars for many of these businesses.

I mean, the argument isn’t that she’s worshipped. It’s that the position is seen fondly as a traditional family who represent the nation.

Let’s extend your argument to the extreme, by your logic if you got into the tech industry simply because you were born into the top ten percent cohort of the world, why should you be allowed to have the opportunity that most of the world didn’t?

A rational individual such as yourself should see that you won the statistical lottery. Why should you have that opportunity because of your birth?

For whatever historical reason that nation follows a familial structure of inheritance, call it genes, call it whatever, it is what it is. You don’t need to understand the structure or even agree with it to respect the fact that a lot of people live in that structure and have done so for centuries.

Why what?

Why is she seen as the maternal head of a nation ? : Well, that's the historic role played by royal families in Europe, there are references to the tradition in heads of state elected around the world with POTUS' family referred to as "The First Family"

You don't need to understand the tradition to respect it if you haven't lived there or experienced it.

Tax Incentives per EJ of Energy produced is a much better comparison: https://www.forbes.com/sites/robertbryce/2022/04/30/newsoms-...

The argument i see here isn't one energy source against another, but about a SANE political weighting of subsidies and investment.

WE SHOULD BE INCENTIVIZING GIGAWATT HOURS OF CLEAN ENERGY CREATION and not define subsidies targeted at any given source.

The EU is like a bunch of children who just realized they have the power to make rules.

Their over exuberance in wanting to push through idiotic regulation that serves as nothing more than a burden on innovation is the stuff of legend. It is no wonder that even with all the genius talent in the continent, it is very hard to find a handful of large, successful tech companies as we do see in Asia or the Americas.

The older bureaucrats need to either get out of the way or wisen up to the period of change the world is going through. Acts such as these will seem intelligent in the short term as they add to the revenue of legacy industry that the EU seems intent on protecting, but the costs to economic growth in the long run from the missed opportunities of investing and nurturing smart talent is going to be too costly to bear.

I'm hopeful that the EU will see the error of their ways, it would be too much of a shame to watch all the intelligent people there suffer on account of yet another short sighted political decision such as this.

When I first came to America, I realized the biggest myth is that people believe it is a capitalist nation with free markets.

It is not. Not by a long shot.

From buying a car to getting medical treatment, America has a very UNIQUE template of the way people think, talk, behave and deal with each industry that is radically different from the rest of the world.

“Healthcare”?: They actually mean “Insurance”. The term has nothing to do with medicine, treatment, personal care or well being, but simply refers to this massive series of legislation over the decades that has enshrined government protection against competition in free markets leading to the extreme inefficiencies driving up prices.

“Dealerships”?: They mean Govt protected localized monopolies with the mandate to abuse said market power against any known free market ideal.

Energy Markets: Same story. Try building a transmission line, nuclear plant or any energy infrastructure in America and you’ll be lucky if you only go bankrupt and lose everything financially. Entities with the innovative courage to attempt such projects have terrible outcomes.

“Housing”: This continues to amaze me with how selective, arbitrary, corrupt and inefficient permits, zoning and all the other functions run by local governments actually are. Take a region as prominent as the SF Bay Area and regardless of your position, everyone likely has a strong opinion on inefficiencies in the market and how they don’t really need to persist in a free market.

In short, the biggest opportunity right now is a technological revolution in government and a challenge to the traditional form of local government that has proven so ineffective in a highly networked society.

This will never happen though because of the inherent self interest of the present structure in keeping things the way they are.

All the comments about the monarchy in this thread miss the point that she is seen as a mother figure of the nation.

The maternal figure head for the UK, a commentator on twitter put it well saying "It felt like we all lost our Grandmother"

Hahahaha. That genuinely made me chuckle :)

Least you could do is search for something so simple before asserting it on HN https://cloud.google.com/bigquery/docs/external-data-drive

Excuse me?

1. Phase out all active reactors without a plan for extending their life 2. Reactors reach end of life gracefully. France decides to extend their life since they don’t have any backup energy sources. 3. Cry that 34 reactors with the same rough age and same design are down for preventive maintenance since they start showing signs of aging.

Are you insane, stupid, malicious or just ignorant?

You should ask the French politicians who passed a law to turn off ALL NUCLEAR PLANTS back in 2015: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-07-22/france-to...

No plan for a backup, those aged reactors more than served their time.

The word you're looking for is "Incompetence". It is also poetic that the present fleet of French Nuclear plants was built to wean France off another energy crisis in the aftermath of the oil cartels moves. It seems history repeats itself for those who dont learn from it.

I can add as much power to the grid as i want to, if there's no storage and demand is low, that makes zero difference to the grid.

Storage being what it is, we either accept the costs of routine (10 year cycle) swap outs or we dont. Simple. Oh, and please remember that present demand will be a fraction of future demand and hence any storage you build must grow in capacity over time.

Photovoltaics serve a very specific use case of aiding domestic energy production at times when conditions are right. They are great for a lot of reasons, but for cases where there is a high demand for reliable supply such as industries producing things, they are . . not the first choice.

Given the equivalent amount of dollars spent by an entity as large as the state of California, with the laws of physics as we know them today, there is only one logical solution in Nuclear energy. The energy density and scale just can not be beaten.

Panels are great for VERY SPECIFIC USE CASES. They do not fill the role of energy security.

You need reliable , clean nuclear plants. The ones from fifty years ago are great, imagine what we could do if the fucking NRC stopped adding such incredibly dumb and onerous requirements on any new permits for new tech.

A surplus of energy is always better than a deficit.

You could have scheduled applications to divert the energy to if storage is not built out. Desalinate the pacific, for example, pump the water inland for drought time when supply exceeds demand.

Build a FUCKTON of nuclear plants and never worry about a fucking electricity bill ever again.

Want to keep the Air conditioning on while you're not even home? Yup, No one cares.

Want to run an audacious amount of carbon capture devices near dense population centers? Yep, absolutely.

Want to desalinate the waters of the pacific and have it ready to pump inland during large scale drought? OF COURSE!!!

The trouble with Nuclear is that it invalidates all the reasons for "Green" politicians to impose excessively wasteful and stupid ideas that dont work, but serve as a slush fund. If we wanted to solve this great pressing carbon emissions problem, we would be building a large nuclear base.

For anyone who's reading this comment and thinking "Wow, AC all day?? What a wasteful way to live!" Congratulations. You are immune to the audacity of using science to solve problems that previous generations considered impossible.

An infinite amount of energy represents the greatest opportunity for humanity for a thousand years. We should have invested and take a giant leap in our quality of life half a century ago.

Let me explain how civil conversation works. You put forth an assertion, and usually, a good response has a counterpoint, seriously or in jest to show you that your position may have not considered the whole thing.

When you draw an absolute line saying drug abuse has no victims, I laugh and point out other “crimes” that do and by your logic are thus different and must be banned.

Now, if you make another point about “forcing people to buy from violent underground marketplaces”, this is where your original comment becomes entirely irrelevant and you’re projecting some unsubstantiated paranoia of yours as a factual argument.

These are addictive substances. Many if not most of them leave permanent psychological scars and inhibit normal human functioning in ways that, unlike naturally occurring substances such as coffee are considered DETRIMENTAL to societal health and safety. By limiting exposure of society to synthetics or dangerous drugs, we limit their harm.

Your argument seems to be everyone in the US population wakes up everyday thinking “where can I get five ks of that sweet sweet Birria” ?

Stop acting like a dickhead if you don’t have any experience with rehabilitating the victims of these idiotic policies you’re proposing and go outside your moms basement once in a while.

“Forced to buy”?

You understand what “addictive substances” means , right? Your solution to protecting a population from being hooked on drugs is . . . Give them more and without restriction?

Sometimes the naïveté in the tech community amazes me.

Synthetics are more potent and technically the opposite of impure.

They’re also sourced from China, a geopolitical adversary where political figures routinely point to the opium wars and revenge for that period on the west.

What? Lol.

Let’s pull the stats on stabbing or blunt force trauma and ban baseball knives, kitchen knives and nail clippers as well ?

Terrorists ran people over with vehicles. So of course, renting a Uhaul van now has to come with a lengthy background check?

The absurdity of the comparison astounds me, and I’m willing to bet, would certainly astonish you were you to step outside the bubble you seem to be in. Have you met anyone that’s known or was a user of synthetics? Read up on the opioid crisis and the societal impact that’s had. It’s a crying shame that it isn’t taught in schools or spoken about even more than it is at present.

Why do you think medical prescriptions exist?

Let’s just publish the literature online and let people choose their dosage of Ivermectin.

It’s insane.

Prison conditions in the US are infamous for the degrading of the human experience to a point of no return.

Open rape culture, radicalization, utterly despicable behavior that even barbarians would shiver at openly covered in popular culture as fact.

As someone who grew up outside the US, it is truly astonishing how fucked up the system is.

Swap “drugs” for “guns” and you’d have the majority of HN flip out.

The Government isn’t a magical entity of absolute perfection. Large classes of banned substances are indeed banned for good reason. Their effects on individual/societal well being documented quite heavily.

Two things can be true at the same time: 1. Some substances that are detrimental to human health need to be controlled. 2. The US government and its present approach to enforcing laws is equally harmful and needs a complete overhaul.