l23k4

And your solution is to exclude the industry from the process? That's what Frieren is proposing, and specifically what I am attacking.

What is that even supposed to mean in practice? Given the lack of a reasonable proposal, I think I'll take their words at face value.

Yes, but you'd generate the same value by simply collecting them.

This is idiotic. "The industry" are also European citizens.

It's about balancing the interests of people who pay their rent and feed their children by selling games, and the interests of people who merely enjoy games.

Consulting only the group which enjoys games would be absurd to the point of being actively malicious.

I love books, but I could never understand self-help nonfiction books. What's the point? Just about any idea which these books may communicate can be better communicated through fiction.

There's no life lessons you'll learn reading self help-books that you won't get by just reading the classics.

Big difference between airline employee checking whether or not you're the ticket holder and the government checking every passenger for warrants.

The false positive rate when doing this via passenger records alone is so high that airport law enforcement will generally only go out of their way to actively look for particularly interesting people.

>Roaming works to bypass GFW. Apparently many local employees of international businesses have a Hong Kong SIM card with generous data allowances, just so they can communicate with the outside world.

Isn't that basically just an IPSec VPN?

>But the question is if its entirely reasonable as to a project like Curl getting less funding overall, simply because everyone is using curl underneath but the tech is boring (as I think it should be), but this makes everyone think that curl is well-funded when it isn't.

I think the returns fall off really really quickly when you increase investment in a boring, mature project like this.

It might be nice if people sponsored curl more, but the software isn't going to significantly improve because of it.

>I can agree with it but I am unsure how much the desperation is out of FOMO or out of real use-cases.

I frequently run into people using it, they seem happy with it. I remain highly skeptical about this being a good idea, but I'm quite convinced that many people genuinely really like it and find it useful.

It would be a big mistake to assume that whoever succeeds Bibi will take a less aggressive stance than he has. Those hoping to replace him are mostly trying to one-up him.

>The thing which bugs me is that OpenAI (which is an unprofitable company) is spending around what 100k$ per month for an completely AI generated slop called Openclaw. (All because of Hype)

For whatever reason, real people seem to desperately want Openclaw regardless of it being AI generated slop.

OpenAI is certainly not wasting the money they're spending on Openclaw, even if I personally wouldn't want to touch that particular piece of software.

I don’t believe in either of those things, I simply respect others’ right to do so.

Utterly nonsensical chart

The church had to actively nag for those indulgences, with SpaceX people have been desperate to get their money in for years and years without SpaceX even asking for it.

> Maybe the feeling is real, maybe it's to justify the greed to one's self (like you seem to be doing)

For what it's worth, I do not own any spcx shares. I just think there's something fascinating happening here, and dismissing it as a mere scam because we dislike Elon Musk would be silly.

> this company is selling the idea of an interstellar future to do the same

It is also, perhaps, one of the easiest and more effective ways in which an individual can vote for such a future.

>"Buyers know it’s overpriced" would excuse every scammer on Earth (and Mars...)

I don't think so https://archive.fo/zcVCZ

You've got people all over the place saying things like this:

>Bryan Mitchell, in Indianapolis, is among those planning to buy. The 48-year-old marketing executive intends to invest several thousand dollars in the IPO. He has also poured tens of thousands into Baron Partners Fund, which holds a stake in SpaceX.

>“This feels like the appetizer. You have to believe in Elon,” he said. “I’m willing to overpay for it just to say I’m part of the thing.”

Bryan isn't being scammed, Bryan just wants to feel like he's a part of something greater and is willing to pay for that. It's not surprising that space travel would be the thing to inspire vast amounts of retail investors to behave in that manner.

>GameStop was a public market mania.

Was?

>In an IPO insiders and banks package the story

This is only true at a very theoretical level.

Who is being scammed? A very significant chunk of retail investors are buying into this stuff knowing it costs more than it's worth.

Gamestop wasn't a scam either, even if the buyers have been irrational.

AWS accepts debit cards.

I don't think the type of the card really matters as long as the limits are reasonable.

> Over here minors can't enter into debt contracts like credit cards

In basically all of the western world minors can enter into debt contracts, but are generally not seen as particularly creditworthy.

Why would a 16 year old not use their own card?

> Can a kid set up an AWS account?

Yes

> Are there no checks?

No

>Wouldn't the contract be void for anyone underage anyway?

Typically not

Yes, it would not be unreasonable to say that funding originating from In-Q-Tel has "CIA roots".

If someone claimed to have a CIA background solely on the basis that In-Q-Tel funded their mapping software, they'd be a charlatan. Just as a guy selling toilet paper to the CIA is not necessarily someone embedded in the intelligence community.

> Niantics founder has CIA roots

This is not at all an honest way of saying "Niantics founder raised money from In-Q-Tel"

> It's not like the raids in the US because there are less guns around.

As an European, this attitude is absolutely fucking shocking.

Police force their way into my home without excellent cause to do so? I'd want someone executed. It would be unforgivable.

It has nothing to do with the guns, but with the absolutely gross violation of the most basic rights codified by the ECHR.

>This would be more about privacy violations and unnecessary chicanery.

Which is actually worse than the typical American shooting. US cops do not typically go to the scene planning to murder someone, in this case the German cops very much knowingly went to harass someone for calling the German interior minister a prick. It is absolutely egregious premeditated harassment.

German minister of interior, the guy in charge of the police, sending the cops to harass people for calling him a prick. Even the current US admin is not so thin-skinned.

>Or, you know, Google's review system has no law that actually ensures they only remove valid and actual defamation claims from the system, so they just remove whatever and claim it's defamation.

How could Google possibly decide which defamation claim is valid and which is not? What realistic cost-effective alternative do they have which does not involve accepting every report of defamation at face value?

>The US has no strict defamation law and yet your bad review will often still get removed from Amazon or Yelp for no valid reason.

Amazon and Yelp choose to do that, they are not forced to do that. How is that supposed to be even vaguely relevant?

This is the kind of legislation that only exists to help the rich and powerful and harm those below them, it's certainly not an example of where EU is doing better than the US.

Or what, do you think it's a genuinely good thing that hosting negative reviews is essentially illegal in Germany?

Neither of them could, there was a very slim set of circumstances where their goals might have sufficiently lined up for this to work. They studied it, arrived at the conclusion that it wasn't going to happen.

To frame this as something that should happen is just taking an overly simplistic view on how fighter jet development works. Even if everything went perfectly, it's far from obvious that a Franco-German designed fighter could be better than a purely French one.

That's just the tip of the iceberg though. Google is the only party who meaningfully communicates this, and it took them years and years to introduce any meaningful transparency.

It's not like this exclusively affects restaurant reviews, every corner of German society is subject to this same evil censorship mechanism.

> But clearly the law can have both positive and negative consequences.

Broad defamation laws always have overwhelmingly negative consequences.

That's a fairly new workaround that took Google years to come up with.

Not all disputes need to be adjudicated. It's undoubtedly a fact that the German concept of "defamation" primarily relates to situations that should never be adjudicated by any third party.

Genuinely, by far the most common situation where claims of defamation arise in Germany is any less than 5 star review left to a business on google maps.