tticvs

If you value "the opportunity to teach" more than the software produced you're just playing with blocks.

Yes, and you'll notice india has been pretty lackadaisical in cracking down on scam call centers.

Bad strawman, worse reasoning. Obviously if the benefits of the regulation outweigh the cost then it's worth it.

In this case the vast majority of the benefit accrues to non-germans (because the German population is small and few Germans profit from copyrighted music) but the loss will accrue only to Germans (since they can't use Suno).

> The conservative CDU is responsible for the decommissioning of nuclear plants

This is a lie.

The atomaustieg was decided by the SPD+Green coalition in 1998 as a condition for the Green joining Schroeders coalition.

The CDU actually reversed course just before Fukushima but unfortunately Merkel then undid that to try to win voters away from the greens by joining the fearmongering post-fukushima.

> the Greens extended the lifetime of the remaining plants

By 3 months, under enormous pressure from all sides during the worst energy crisis in postwar german history when they could have reversed course or extended them longer. You don't get much credit for this.

This was inarguably one of the greatest political mistakes of the 21st century so far and the blame is squarely on the Green party and their voters. The real propaganda is you trying to deflect it into the CDU.

Yes, so let's think long term. How do we keep it rolling? Perhaps we will need to continue to advance our technology, especially moving industries to space where there is no ecosphere.

We're doing extremely well compared to an unimaginably long period of pre-industrialization.

It introduces no issues for space travel. And what exactly do you want to happen here? LEO to stay empty because no one else is able to fill it and for spacex to not to try to expand because the regulatory process isn't perfect according to your standards?

Well the only thing that has ever solved starvation is improved technology, child abuse I think has nothing to do with satellites, and managing climate change requires massive energy and technology resources especially in space.

So clearly you are in favor of starvation and human suffering due to climate change because of your irrational distaste for seeing satellites in orbit.

I suspect the root cause is you've overdosed on propaganda on the internet.

1. That's not true. 2. It's not "at will" if you actually read the article you're commenting under you'd see it is about them _applying for a license_ to do something.

Correct, they can choose not to buy an iphone. Also, in this case, the EU regulations are undermining privacy.

OpenAI pulling out investment after their local partner fails to meet milestones is a scam?

You'd have a point if Germany did anything to actually support businesses scaling instead of trying to kneecap them at every turn

> Just because things have been horrific up to this point, does not mean that we should want them to continue to be horrific

Wrong. Things stopped being horrific precisely because of the overwhelming amount of weaponry produced by capitalist enterprises on behalf of democratic nations. Continuing the process prevents the horrors from returning.

> Advocating for change against the violent factions of the world, is indeed, a good thing to do.

Also wrong. Any "violent faction" that would listen to you is de facto a good faction, so you are either wasting your time or undermining exactly the factions you should be empowering.

> I don’t want my songs – some written with survivors of conflict – to enrich people who fund weapons

Says the man whose comfortable existence is entirely predicated on advanced weaponry wielded on his behalf.

Setting aside spotify, this is the philosophy of an child

That is quite literally the meaning of life, so yes.

Very naive. The services are potentially replaceable, the data is not.

That's not even considering the political backlash. How do you explain to your population that their digital lives have been permanently deleted because of a trans-national legal spat they don't care about?

I suspect that this is going to fall into the "nothing ever happens" bucket.

What they're implying is that it is illegal for US companies to comply with EU law.

This is significantly different than the EU enforcing the GDPR extraterritorially since that's basically just an increased cost of doing business in Europe and is apparently worth it.

But if the US companies have to choose between complying with US extraterritorial law or EU extraterritorial law they're going to have to choose the US, for obvious reasons.

It doesn't seem to me that convenient legal subsidiary structures or data physicality setups are gonna work here.

The effect of US companies withdrawing cloud services would be devastating to the EU. Imagine if you could no longer access your gmail or outlook account, your apple or google photos disappear , whatsapp shuts down, all you companies documents are no longer accessible on Office365 or G drive.

The results would be indistinguishable from a massive cyber attack and would take decades to recover from.

There's just no way the EU would inflict a wound of this magnitude on itself.

More likely the EU will be forced to back down since they are completely dependent on US digital services imports for basic infrastructure.

FWIW I have 4 sonos devices in my home and I've got basically zero problems. I guess I mostly use Airplay to control them but I do occasionally use the app and it's fine.

I'm really not sure what all the fuss is about.

The pre-war energy status quo was also not good, and further in the context of the zero-sum german budget created by the Schuldenbremse a euro invested in the energiewende is a euro that cannot be more productively invested elsewhere.

> Road deaths are "random". Obviously each one has a specific cause, but we're all equally at risk. We're all in agreement that they should be avoided, and we have significant legislation to improve safety (no one is advocating for drunk driving.

This is not true at all. Auto accidents are not random and we have significant policy levers that we could pull to drastically reduce them but it's politically controversial to do so.

Simple example would regulating the height of the nose of trucks so that F-150 drivers can see pedestrians easier and make impacts less deadly. Obviously policy, politically impossible.

It's a tradeoff, for example the German Girocard network is fundamentally built on top of SEPA so it is very low cost.

But that also means that it does not support features that credit card networks support like chargebacks or 3DS. For that reason it also doesn't work online.

This is a space that a lot of bank transfer payment schemes fit into: low cost, fast settlement, high risk.

> That’s right, this manufacturing company will become a unicorn this year—one of only 6,000 companies in the world earning more than $1 billion in revenue.

This is not what "unicorn" means. I do not think this author knows much about what they are writing about.

> maybe we as a species should die?

Sounds a lot like giving up to me.

Wishing for human extinction makes you an enemy of all mankind btw

> While renewables capture an inexhaustible source of energy (Sun)

Fortunately that solar panels require no resources to create, require no maintenance, and take no subsidies to maintain as an industry!

"The future looks somewhat difficult, better give up and go extinct"

Fortunately natural selection will remove this mindset eventually.

It's unfortunate that the species has to suffer it in the meantime.

> Either we do this voluntarily and as orderly as possible, or it just happens for us. Your response seems to indicate a complete unawareness of the impending situation our species is going to be facing.

I think it's a pretty natural reaction against the relentless push of this false choice by people who cannot imagine a third way that actually makes life better.

Your response seems to indicate a complete unawareness that there are other options besides enforced poverty.

However it is not possible to support the human population without industrial society and its corresponding energy use.

The woman pictured in the article (Anne Mahrer) is also a staunch anti-nuclear activist.

She has some incredible audacity bringing this case.

In a just world she would be a defendant not a plaintiff.