you are not allowed to import cars into China en mass

Your link says, "Germany's car industry relies on China for a large proportion of its sales revenue and has long advocated keeping trade doors open."

The car manufacturers will produce whatever they can make money selling. EVs are significantly more expensive than equivalent gasoline-powered cars [...] The higher prices mean that most of the people who are going to buy EVs already have.

If that's how our automakers want to play it, then they don't need protectionism from China EV's. Let's see how much "significantly more expensive" EV's really are.

The judge who ruled it can't be copyrighted said only works with human authors can be copyrighted. That statement actually affirms that the author of the work is the AI, not the humans who wrote the innumerable inputs to its training corpus or programmed its learning algorithm. But since that author is not human, it isn't eligible. (I wonder if the same questions were ever raised about corporations owning copyrights).

I see. It seems that is (mostly) so.

TikTok has said under oath that Americans' data has always been stored outside China. Now it's saying there are big exceptions for creators - who it claims it treats differently than "typical users."

https://www.forbes.com/sites/a...

It's a senseless claim either way. If the information is in China it's in China. The government doesn't have to "ask," they can "demand" or "confiscate." They could also tell TikTok to deny it. This would be true of anywhere the data resides, although some governments are more responsible about it than others.

If we're going to try to limit what bulk information can go where, the argument would have to be that the potential harm is small, or else that trying to restrict it is virtually impossible, like it or not. Tik-Tok pinky-swearing not to share it with their own government changes nothing.

But it surprised me too. I've only noticed it in the last couple years. Like "performant."

To me it feels like the fiber buildout of the 90's. The amount of fiber they laid turned out to be massive overkill because of gains in throughput per fiber:

During the dot-com bubble, a large number of telephone companies built optical-fibre networks, each with the business plan of cornering the market in telecommunications by providing a network with sufficient capacity to take all existing and forecast traffic for the entire region served. This was based on the assumption that telecoms traffic, particularly data traffic, would continue to grow exponentially for the foreseeable future. The advent of wavelength-division multiplexing reduced the demand for fibre by increasing the capacity of a single fibre by a factor of as much as 100. According to Gerry Butters, the former head of Lucent's Optical Networking Group at Bell Labs, the amount of data that could be carried by an optical fibre was doubling every nine months at the time. This progress in the ability to carry data over fibre reduced the need for more fibres. As a result, the wholesale price for data communications collapsed and a number of these companies filed for bankruptcy protection. Global Crossing[7] and Worldcom[8] are two high-profile examples in the United States.

Similar to the Railway Mania, the misfortune of one market sector became the good fortune of another, and this overcapacity created a new telecommunications sector.

NVidia an all the companies spending billions on their cards and data centers are hugely at risk of future algorithmic advances that might increase AI computation efficiency drastically. The human brain runs on 20 watts.

Everywhere has less solar than Australia - you're #1

(Per capita)

https://reneweconomy.com.au/au...

1483

Launching a ransomware attack on Russia from within Russia sounds, how shall I put it, like suicide.

Modifying the environment is fine but only if you do it with no thought or analysis whatsoever and are purely motivated by turning a buck. Then people will do anything to convince themselves that mankind could not possibly modify the environment.

Greece and Poland don't have universal healthcare either and they spend 1/4 of what we do per capita.

We do have a huge profiteering problem but there are other factors - it's a rich country so we can spend a lot, we have rampant obesity, the population is ageing, and we spend a lot on biomedical research.

I agree about conservatives but it's also liberals, who have a fundamental aversion to making rational cost/benefit healthcare decisions because they ultimately don't believe that money represents anything real and finite.

It could be done, but not without completely re-inventing healthcare in America, including our expectations about 'consumer choice' (laymen telling the doctor what we need) and over-treatment (spend $1000 on an MRI even if there's a tiny chance of it helping - or get sued), and throwing expensive care at lost causes, especially at end-of-life. We need far more teaching hospitals, to create more physicians with cheaper education and less demanding jobs but who are paid less money. We need to rip out the whole private insurance market, which is enmeshed in the job market and taxation. Then we'd need the public to vote for the taxes to pay for it.

I hate to say it can never happen but after watching the trajectory of Obamacare, it's hard not to.

It's interesting that people think that. In fact the US government spends more per capita on healthcare than Switzerland, Sweden, Denmark, France, Canda, Japan, UK, New Zealand, Australia...

https://www.visualcapitalist.c...