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.

You say that like you know a damn thing about masculinity. There is nothing masculine about being an incel you little twit.

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.

There are errors in some of the lyrics on these sites that are replicated everywhere. That is, you cannot find the lyrics without the errors. Anywhere....except if you have a booklet that came with the CD, I guess..

Just one example that I encountered recently. In the soundtrack of the film "Arizona dream", there is a number titled "TV screen". A line in the lyrics says "You are the target for the stars and the products on the TV screen". I hear it very clearly....Every lyrics site I checked had "planets" instead of "products".

See here for example
https://genius.com/Goran-brego...

Can some good soul (native English speaker) listen to the song and tell me did I mishear? The whole world says "planets" but I insists the word is products. Also, products is much more in line with the the lyrics. The stars that sells us products on the TV screen.....planets just does not fit IMO.

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.

That's one narrative you can tell. Another would be that the Republican party really only thrives when their candidates are brazenly corrupt and immoral. There's a fundamental dishonesty to candidates like Goldwater, Ford, Bush Sr., Dole, McCain, and Romney, who feel duty-bound to pretend to be moral while pushing the same aristocratic bullshit as Nixon, Reagan, Bush Jr., and Trump. I would argue that the latter were much more successful because of their shamelessness.

Constantly morphing coalitions consisting of odd couples is just the two party system. The right-wing pairing of racists and religious extremists is a much better fit than Democrats trying to get union members and the trans community to see eye to eye. The Venn diagram of racists and religious extremists is practically a single circle. One could argue that it was the Civil Rights Act that really got them to lock step.

Identifying a singular genesis for our current problems that can be articulated in a couple sentences sounds nice, but we can always move that back to something else. For example, "This whole mess started after WWII ended and the Cold War began, because the military industrial complex has made us economically dependent on a system incentivized to embrace fascism." Or, "This whole mess started when the Federalists and the Democratic-Republicans set the precedent for a two party system." One I like is, "This whole mess started when Truman's political cronies pushed him through as Vice President." How about, "This whole mess started when Joe Biden had the hubris to run for re-election and no one in his inner circle had the courage to vociferously insist he step down before the primary?"

History has no single narrative. It's complicated and messy. There are pivotal moments, but there isn't A pivotal moment.

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".