They're not trying to sell it. They're selling it.

They already did engineering, and probably most of the production run, and they are putting it on sale.

No one is shitting where "we" eat because there's no "we" in this case.

We're in different rooms. I get my configuration, you get yours, and whoever wants AI browsing gets his or hers. What they do in their room is their business.

Get out of other people's homes and stop telling them what browser configuration they should be using there. You make google and microsoft looks positively nice in comparison.

No one is forcing you to use AI browsing. It's an opt in option. Don't opt in. You have a choice. Use it.

This desire to tell people "fuck you, I got mine" is incredibly damaging.

You and me are fine with current browsing. A lot of people would like AI assist. Let them have it. Freedom to choose what you want is good.

This isn't fair to Chinese government. Their entire societal model is built on low consumption high production mass transfers from people to industry. This has been reinforced for decades, and they already saw with Evergrande what happens if government tries even the tiniest deflation of the bubble this produced.

So they're naturally excessively cautious about changing flows of wealth within the system as to avoid crashing it entirely.

You're describing a completely different system.

Actually PRC's funding model is mass transfers of wealth from citizenry to companies. This is a well understood policy that has been in place at least since Deng.

This is why their citizenry has such low consumption power related to state's economic prowess compared to pretty much everyone else in the world, and why PRC is so horrifically dependent on exports to actually consume what they produce.

They're not viable for export, because most of them are "basic" models.

That means features required in the place with purchasing power like the West are missing entirely. I.e. some legally mandated safety features.

Whereas in third world, they will likely be overlooked in favor of actually used cars from the West (which is the big thing most third world uses) because most of the PRC bottom tier model lack galvanic rust protection. I.e. if they sat in a middle of some remote area for a few years as is the case for countless such cars being filmed by Chinese bloggers, they're going to be already rusting quite significantly.

Artificial Intelligence Act needs to follow its primary architect and be utterly removed in such a way that brings great shame on any of its defenders.

For those not in the know, it led to its principal creator, everyone's favorite French fascist grandma Thierry Breton get removed from his Commissar post by a German with... French support.

It was an utterly unprecedented scandal within EU, which is generally built on careful balance of Franco-German relations. For French to actually allow Germans to throw out a French Commissioner is an anathema to this balancing act.

And yet it was done, because this demented freak decided to become the embodiment of "America invents, China builds, Europe regulates" by pre-emptively regulating AI into non-existence in EU. And that was so bad, that even Jupiterian president of the Fifth Republic realized that someone who made a fuck up this bad cannot represent his nation within the Commission. And so he gave his blessing for von der Leyen to throw the gimp out, something she was trying to do for years with no success because of aforementioned balancing act.

Market is the most accurate mechanism for measuring created value that we have. We have tried many other mechanisms, and none of them come even close in accuracy.

This excuse doesn't survive even most marginal scrutiny, such as observing that growth of HR has been massive in countries where employee lawsuits cannot legally generate large enough fines/restitution payments to justify the cost of HR.

True. That claim peaks at around 80-90IQ. People above that generally understand that Chinese are indeed a communist nation.

I misunderstood your meaning, as I clearly outlined in my opening post that I'm talking about specific regulatory difference between US and EU.

Most of EU, you cannot own what you are referring to as "mineral rights". State reserves those for itself. That means that if someone is allowed to explore for minerals, you as a land owner is completely and utterly fucked. Someone else gets all the profits, while you get all the downsides of having a mine on your land.

That means that all locals who are invested in land will oppose any mineral exploration and extraction.

As your link points out, opposite is true for US. "Mineral rights" are mostly privately held, and typically by land owners until they choose to separate those from surface use rights and sell mineral rights to someone else. This means that land owner can lease or sell right to minerals and get a significant share of profits of any extracted fracked oil or gas revenue.

Hence massive popular opposition of land owners to fracking in EU, and wide scale support of land owners for it in US.

Me? No. That claim belongs to geologists.

But Europe is very poor in oil and natgas with Dutch reserves running out sometime this decade at current rate, North Sea being slowly choked out for being expensive (and UK's net zero madness). This leaves only fairly expensive Norway with it's offshore platforms and Russians as the only large scale sources for oil and gas.

In this light, even the five layers or so we have in our shale, while far less viable than North American dozen or so are still infinitely more than "nothing". It would mean EU wouldn't need to have all the pain with trying to rid itself of Russian hydrocarbons, while getting pressured by everyone from Libyans to Qataris because they have to import oil and natgas from somewhere, and US is just too far away for costs to not be in the "key heavy industries cannot be competitive with these prices".

I have no idea how you would go about having "both systems active". Developers that want minimal customer freedom would leave because of GoG component, while developers that want maximum customer freedom would leave because of Epic's policies.

The outcome would be a store with no clients.