xvokcarts

> 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.

> And what exactly will people not buy because of activists?

I think that was my reply to a post about Apple exiting the EU market (completely unlikely IMO, since that would reduce profits), which may cause those unable to buy what they want to question the sensibility of specific regulation.

> "companies are so good for customers why do activists try to ruin a good thing"

I don't think anyone said that. But enacting regulation forcing Volvo to give you a full experience without Google Account login is just acting a step too late if you already bought it, or taking a step too far if you'd like to buy it but don't like it enough, and are now demanding they change it.

> Do unto others what you would do unto yourself and all that.

I think that means to treat others as you’d like to be treated when you interact, not actively do to people what you’d like others to do to you. “I know what’s best for you and I’m going to make sure it happens” is a threat to most people, I’d say, and that was my point about regulation enacted by expert groups without public vote.

> An anecdote: My mom has used Apple's Books it since it first came out.

When my mom was fed up with lack of a specific game (can’t remember which) on her iPhone, she switched to Android and hasn’t looked back since. No additional regulation was necessary and nobody was left behind.

> Sure, let's just have supranational companies create walled gardens with arbitrary rules. Nothing bad has ever come out of that.

Only when monopoly was involved.

I’m not against interoperability, but I think it’s wierd to force anyone into it, be it a company, or a consumer, since nobody is in a monopolistic position, and everyone has a choice. When people have a choice they can make it as they wish, and they do, that’s why Apple is not in a dominant position - because people can make a choice.

The thing that’s funny to me is that regulation now caters to people that want a specific device type with specific functionality dictated by government allegedly on behalf of the average consumer.

> My best guess, tbh, is apathy. That's rather why they're not activists in the first place.

Exactly. A few people want interoperability and everyone accepts it because they don't care since it doesn't affect their lives. I'm not a policy expert, but this seems a bit like riding the high horse. The answer to "what's best for others" should not be "that which we want for ourselves" regardless of expertise.

We're not talking about regulation improving human lives in general. We're talking about regulation that will stick it to foreign companies we think are too big, in the name of enabling competition, which will again, due to the real reasons for EU tech decline, come from the USA.

>EU buyer here, I am extremely hype for forced interop and think it almost justifies the existence of the EU on its own.

That was my point. There is no "we".

>That's the case for every regulation - policy is made by activists.

Maybe, but when regulation made by activists starts touching the lives of people that don't care about the thing activists want, they may not like the idea of activists deciding for them. So far all the companies regulated by EU have accepted the regulation - we don't know how most people will react if suddenly something they want is not available to them because of a minority that think their expertise is above their wants.

> "Develop stuff the way we want, or lose sales"

I think the wants (of the EU buyers) are far less homogeneous than the group of open integration activists make it look like, so there's no "we". We hear the opinions of the vocal ones and based on those voices regulation is enacted, but nothing changes for the silent majority. However, a lot of people in the EU may start caring if they can no longer buy what they want just because of the vocal few, and they may stop being silent about it when it touches them.

I think it speeds up because we settle in a routine, and when every day is mostly the same the brain just compresses the experience. The younger you are, the more new everything is around you, and you may not know yet what is worth trying or not, hence more things happen, and that makes it appear to last longer.

Everybody gangsta until an object object starts falling.

Yeah, what a fun way to spend some time :)

Are you saying that borders shouldn’t exist because they’re man made?

It's not magic and it's not invisible. And if it's a government for the people, then it's the people that are being authoritarian. Maybe a high-liberties society can only prosper if it protects itself from the outside.

> Most modern applications - composed of barely more than a few images, buttons and lines of text - sit uneasily upon towering tech-stacks comprising millions of lines of code. The industry is plagued by overcomplicated, slow and buggy software that is painful both to use and develop.

Well, they got this right.

Uber broke the law that protects traditional taxi drivers from having competition under the guise of passenger safety (taxi drivers have the same driver's license as any other driver, no additional safety certs). The public was way too happy to use Uber and that's why it's now forbidden where I live (a country in central EU).

Just breaking the law is not disrupting. Disrupting requires broad support from the public, which is aware that laws are being broken and are fine with it - meaning the particular laws in place are ripe for questioning at the very least.

Uber isn’t what it is because they broke the law, but because the vast public approve of their actions.

> Take the single problem of mobility: many very smart engineers have worked together to develop a set of wheels that can usually move the rovers around their environment without getting stuck or damaged, or at least have a chance of getting unstuck. A human that hasn't climbed a set of stairs in a decade can still outpace the rovers, and do so over more varied terrain, and with less chance of getting stuck.

Yeah, we’ve got great fine motor skills and high dexterity, but are obviously still too dumb to emulate those parts effectively.

Almost. Bought shitload of pro tools, found an apartment to remodel completely by myself (and completed it), but stopped at the final step: haven't started a remodeling company :D

>then getting lured by one of those tool combo deals that has another drill lurking in the pile

So relatable it's funny.

Yeah, you described my experience exactly! :)

The same wiki article also describes the absurdness of the whole thing:

> At 10:38 pm, SWAT entered the house and used a stun grenade to conceal their movements [...] During the next 10.2 hours, a Lenco BearCat was driven through the front door, tear gas[1] and 40 mm grenades were repeatedly launched inside, shots were fired upon the house, and explosives were detonated to destroy several exterior walls.

Just amazing multiple people (the authorities) were present and none of them stopped to think "gee, that house is somebody's home".

> If the mortgage application evaluation system is deterministic so that the same input always produces the same output then it is easy to answer "Why was my application rejected?".

But banks, at least in my country (central EU), don't have to explain their reasons for rejecting a mortgage application. So why would their automated systems have to?