Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×

Comment Re:US auto industry cedes the market again (Score 1) 283

I would even pay higher prices for a US product. Say double the cost of what they're charging domestically for Chinese EVs. The problem is there is no US product, at any cost, and that is by choice not by law.

If there aren't any EVs available below $30k within the next few years, I might skip "the industry" entirely and get an electrified classic from a small shop. I gather it'd be roughly the same price and it would match my needs even better than the Chinese cars.

Comment US auto industry cedes the market again (Score 4, Insightful) 283

It sounds like much a repeat of the situation in the auto industry in the 70s. US automakers fixated on one class of vehicle to the exclusion of everything else, then the market shifts away from that and they're caught with their pants down. Asian manufacturers step in products ready to fill the gaps.

I would be OK with an import ban if the US manufacturers offered comparable vehicles at comparable prices.

Comment Re:Thanks Biden (Score 1, Insightful) 85

If it looks like Biden is steering somewhere, I assure you it's an illusion. Inertial to a fault, an aimless drift at best. I can't think of 1 issue voters care about that he's substantially shifted on since being elected. Tweaks in tone here and there, but nothing of substance.

Trump jumped out of the ring on abortion, with the boiler-plate "state's rights" cop-out that gets deployed whenever a Republican needs to avoid taking a position on an issue. Not that it even matters for a guy who's never held a coherent position on anything. As you pointed out, that's not a problem for his supporters.

I had put 100% odds on him winning the Republican nomination. I'll put 70% odds on him losing the Presidential race this year, and 100% odds on him losing the popular vote.

Comment Re:Do I have to pay? (Score 1) 91

No. Thankfully you also don't have to read thousands of other news agencies, collate and serve them to millions of people continually on a daily basis, and sell a few billion worth of ads (etc.) on top of that.

Because if you did, then you might have some complex problems to consider. Thankfully I have managed to avoid ever being in that scenario. Fingers crossed.

Comment Re:Journalism costs money. (Score 2) 91

The bulk of news consumption is scanning headlines. Google News lets you scan the headlines of 20 papers, obtain from them your brief of the world's daily events, and not click or pay anything to anyone.

The worst-hit outlets will trend smaller and local. I'm not sure why you associate that with "extreme left". Google sure doesn't care who's handing them the money. Propaganda outlets have funding secured externally, they will just move out-of-state and continue unimpeded.

Comment Re:Journalism costs money. (Score 3, Interesting) 91

Worried about theft, just stop earning money. I suppose that's one way to do it.

The whole issue is related to Google's monopoly/infrastructure-like status. When readers exchanged directly with news outlets, we didn't have these problems. Only after Google was inserted as the gatekeeper.

It's hard for me to find pity for Google being in a position they created, and are profiting wildly on. It's far beyond seeking rent.

Comment Re:Journalism costs money. (Score 1) 91

The failure will be due to it only applying to California outlets. Google still gets to use content from the other 49 states, so Google News remains largely unaffected. (While it could very well be a death sentence for the news outlets.) You would need to have the same rules apply to the all of the content.

It's all related to Google's monopoly/infrastructure-like status. When readers exchanged directly with news outlets, we didn't have these problems. Only after Google was inserted as the gatekeeper.

Comment Re:There are no banned books. None. (Score 1) 250

Raging against Communists makes you sound like a boomer. Raging against "lefty fascists" doesn't sound quite as boomer.

Also, a shining example of projection, which has become so prominent in right-wing discourse in recent years. ("No, you're a racist!") Prominent enough that it seems to have been deemed important for the propagandists to push, unless it all just arose organically from twisted minds. It's probably both, feeding off eachother in a loop.

Comment Re:We've seen this song and dance before (Score 1) 28

What I got from the post is that Netflix was only given permission to read your messages. With the heavy implication that Netflix never utilized that permission. That they made sure not to directly say that, only imply it, tells me what actually happened.

But even apart from the telling PR-dance, leaving data on the table is leaving money on the table. If someone's been given permission to take it, they will. Sometimes even without the permission.

Slashdot Top Deals

If you want to put yourself on the map, publish your own map.

Working...