For what it's worth, this has not been my experience with Americans. There are certainly things that I don't like about the average American, but I find him to be pretty gregarious.
>The executive branch can categorize AI technology as equivalent to nuclear weapons technology.
Theoretically, but this would run the risk of collapsing the US tech sector, which at this point is a significant part of the strength of the US economy, and thus making it likely that the Republicans will lose power in the next elections.
I don't view that as an additional new risk. Investors are already all-in on AI, despite being one geopolitical event away from apocalypse regarding Taiwan.
If the AI companies and the current administration are both enemies of the working class - I am not necessarily saying that they are, but for the sake of argument let's say that they are - then it probably makes strategic sense for the working class to encourage them to fight each other while supporting the side that is less dangerous. Which side is less dangerous to the working class, I do not know. My point is that there's not necessarily any strategic contradiction between defending the AI companies and supporting the working class.
I like seeing the vanilla JS. Clean and simple. I don't think that vanilla JS is always the best approach, but I think that for this case it certainly is.
I think it's Darwinian logic in action. In most areas of software, perfection or near-perfection are not required, and as a result software creators are more likely to make money if they ship something that is 80% perfect now than if they ship something that is 99% perfect 6 months from now.
I think this is also the reason why the methodology typically named or mis-named "Agile", which can be described as just-in-time assembly line software manufacturing, has become so prevalent.
> software creators are more likely to make money if they ship something that is 80% perfect now than if they ship something that is 99% perfect 6 months from now.
Except they are shooting themselves in the foot. I reminds me of the goldrush where the shovel and trousers sellers (here the AI companies) would make more money than the miners (developers).
Soon there will be barely any software to build if the general public can just ask an AI to do the things they want. 10 years ago, people would ask a friend that knew about photoshop to help them edit a picture or create something. Nowadays most of them just ask an AI. Same will happen to any kind of productivity or artistic tool. The people alergic to AI slop will just go full luddite and analog and won't use a computer for anything artistry so software creators will lose them alltogether. Home and professionnal software might gradually just disappear and most software creators will have spent thoundands of dollars in tokens with nothing to sell anymore. What might survive might only be the tools that AI rely one, operating systems, database and storage systems, etc.
But boy you will have been super productive, yet totally cancelled by the increase in competition, for the few years it lasted.
> No, he called some Mexican migrants into the US rapists.
It was more than that.
In his own words, 'some' of those migrants[1] are good people (/maybe/ - he's apparently never met one), but everyone else...
"They're not sending their best. They're sending people with lots of problems. And they're bringing those problems with us[sic]. They're bringing drugs, they're bringing crime, they're rapists, and some - I assume - are good people."
"When Mexico sends its people, they're not sending their best. They're not sending you. They're not sending you. They're sending people that have lots of problems, and they're bringing those problems with us. They're bringing drugs. They're bringing crime. They're rapists. And some, I assume, are good people."
This statement first asserted that mexico was deliberately exporting its people to the US (as opposed to people deciding to come of their own accord) and then generalized that they were importing social problems, before making a concession that some of them might not be.
This would be like if I said your HN posts consisted of lies, propaganda, and invective but that I assume some of them were worth reading. I doubt you'd feel the little conciliatory bit at the end balanced out the unfair allegations that preceded it.
If your countrymen want to use Uber, Air B&B, Oracle, and Facebook, should you try to stop them from doing it, even if you personally dislike those companies?
You are making the same argument that Trump is making with the tariffs. Personally, while I can see some good arguments for protectionism, I'd rather have the choice to decide whether or not I want to buy Chinese products, rather than the government making the choice for me.
Closer to the point: having Uber in a place with a licensed taxi trade is basically the same thing as removing licensing and then granting a monopoly on one business to operate taxis.
So you two are on completely separate frames of thought. One party sees it as a matter of choice, the other sees it as removing choice because one party has a monopoly on avoiding the regulations.
The issue here is IMO more so that the taxi driver should be able to operate a taxi business without a license without having to go through Uber. Ultimately what is happening in a lot of places is the guys with medallions will basically use agents of the state to violently enforce their racket (which Uber breaks up, but then monopolizes), or alternatively in some places in Latin America the entrenched taxi drivers will simply shoot to kill their competitors that don't have cartel sanctioned 'medallions.'
Do some research on why these services are so attractive before you give your opinion on it being a good thing. What these companies are doing should be illegal under US law as well, but they have paid your president to make that issue go away.
I personally think that FB, Uber, RBNB, Oracle, Google, Amazon, and literally every american SASS should be completely forbidden from Europe. Period no discussion at all. Given the state of current America, given the reactions even on this very post that do not see how Cambridge Analytics has damaged the entire world - yes, I think it would be safe to put a good 10 year ban on every US web tech. It would fasten up Europe and leave out the important decision to someone who can actually make a difference instead of being washed out by some reddit / twitter with fake russian bots. Let the economics just move away and make the decisions for people who are in a state of hypnosis instead of playing with mass control and then calling it "freedom".
Keep your american movies and social networks please. Btw why is TikTok banned in US?
Yes I do - for example ; any American that wishes to make a company in Europe will need to have a European voucher which is the owner of the service - so the money doesn't flow out of the country trough some UberMornonization app with $millions to ultimately do colonization.
There is 0 reason for us to let american suck away important infrastructure tools, benefits that goes with it, or even benefit from tax exemption trough the best company framework there can possibly exist.
I still haven't got an answer here - why is TikTok US owned ?
I *personally* have a freaking orchestrator, mail server, git server, faster than rocksdb DATABASE ENGINE, freaking world of warcraft and faster than NGINX for static. It's cute that you think you have the capabilities to imagine what Europe can or cannot do.
We've got plenty of servers, electricity, network hardware and people who code. We are missing the oxygen in the room, which American services all collectively sucked out. Banning those services will open some potential for innovation.
I think what your missing is a regulatory framework that wont immediately screw you. Just look at how far behind you are with AI. AI is nascent so you have no excuse about "oxygen" or whatever.
reply