Or more like "cloud infrastructure running within physical and legal jurisdiction of the EU is running locally to the EU" if you prefer .. if it's software they've written, running on hardware within the EU's physical and legal reach, voila, "sovereignty".

"The only way to ensure sovereignty and control is with software running locally with NO cloud dependency."

They're not talking about personal sovereignty. Cloud infrastructure an organization owns is "running locally" to that organization.

that particular amendment was voted down, bozo - the system works, no hand wringing required

doesn't mean hate speech doesn't exist

I'm pretty sure corporations are worse for the environment than people.

You're confident in suggesting that corporations don't cater to the demand of the market, the customers of whom seems to be waiting for the heads of those corporations to take the bus before they can be bothered to stop pissing in their own pools?

Tragedy of the commons to a tee.

I don't disagree with your first point.

I don't admire billionaires at all. I don't think they should exist. Wealth disparity is unchecked.

But that doesn't prevent me from operating within my own set of principles rather than in a sort of "you first" manner, which strikes me as quite child-like.

If every wealthy person on earth did the right thing, our environment would still be fucked, because they're vastly outnumbered by non-wealthy people.

So you're stuck on a sinking boat with a rich person, and you refuse to plug a hole until he or she plugs a hole.

The funny thing, by the time you smugly drown, they've already left the boat on a helicopter. The wealthy *be definition* will not feel the effects of worsening climate. You (and your kids) will.

I think it'd be far more intellectually honest to admit you just don't care. Nothing wrong with that, per se. It's a hell of a lot more logically defendable than your stated position.

The rare AI enthusiast

Hey, I know this is the site for devs who are so old that they're out of the game or enthusiasts who wish they could call themselves developers, but AI assisted coding is just plain normal today. It's not even controversial.

In all the projects you love, hate, or don't care about. If you're developing today and not using AI at all, you're the rare developer.

Fudge, obviously I meant to reply to the OP. Your post clearly has some basis in being informed on the subject.

I am obviously not an expert but... we know what happens when you remove a species from the food chain.

In other words: "I don't know what happens, but we (I) know what happens ... "

Like, honestly, dude.

Chances that you do this: zero

"I've seen the pictures" says another American who figures using the internet amounts to actually living life, going places, being less of a moron.

Seasoned C programmers create memory bugs all the time. I mean, the idea that "experience" leads to perfect code is bananas. There's a reason why static analysis is used in any serious environment. Rust just makes that part of the language without an annoying about of tooling/pipeline cruft.

The problem is he had never put much thought into how to actually manage memory in a reasonable way in C. This is why C code is bad, because C programmers never ask themselves, "How do I not leak memory?"

Honestly this reads like you've never worked with real programmers.

"Insightful" because this place is full of old people who really overestimate their abilities to know what is good.

The world is moving on, buddy. C is "fine" in so far as how amazing you are at writing code that doesn't have memory access issues. I'm not shitting on C. But Rust isn't crap - it's really very good and there's a reason why the active generation of big stakeholders (Linux kernel devs, MS, and way way beyond) are chuffed about the value it brings.

Ah, that's an interesting detail (one I agree with) - thank you for pointing that out.

If you need to force people to promote / accept your culture, you should be asking why people prefer other cultures and address those issues instead.

Need is too strong a word. Want is the word. And mostly its there to force content publishers to protect a culture - given the balance of size of American popular culture, American content providers, etc .. I think it's naive to think it comes down to "a free market would accurately represent the desires of a specific domestic market in which it operates"

Media/culture is not some giant buffet where people walk in and just take (and pay for) the plate they want.