The EU is probably too strict, while the US is too lax. Canada may be one country with a better balance. At the very least, the EU countries need to loosen the laws up a bit for business with less than 6 people, since one "unfireable" employee can end up taking down the whole company.
I wasn't aware of the answer myself, but one article (https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cy8d4v69jw6o), from June 2025, I found suggests a number of factors, including:
- economies of scale
- battery technology
- deep integration
- national vision to build out fore the future (something the US is lacking right now)
Right now I’d make it:
“When gas-fueled cars are outlawed, only non-legacy American car manufacturers will sell abroad”.
Given the state of auto manufacturers and US oil business, with their focus on lobbying to weaken EPA environmental regulations, they will have to play catch-up. Certainly EVs certainly have always to go in terms of battery technologies and reducing costs, but they are improving given the increased investments. The problem for the US is that it keeps on giving up its technology and advantages to China, because local corporations and government are still too short term in their thinking.
One of the challenges with the most EU countries is that trying to create a startup is lot harder. Just consider the extra bureaucracy and stricter labour laws. These often end up playing to the advantage of establish medium to large businesses, who don't have the innovative drive needed in many cases.
If there was some carve out for startups then we could see a more dynamic IT sector, but right now it may actually be better to incentivise Canada to work with the EU to find a solution that works. I say Canada, since they are more aligned with the EU in a number of cases (especially after Trump America Inc) and the risk for creating a startup there is lower.
If I was one of the best devs, I wouldnâ(TM)t want to be regulated to vibe coding.
Maybe I just weird in that I actually enjoy solving problems and trying to think of the way things are put together?
When the product is a $30 Android phone, they definitely want you to believe they are losing money on it with a 60 day unlock policy. But given how slow those phones are I really don't know how much they could be losing.
They could simply do like other places do: make it a pay to own, where each month simply pays off the phone some more. If you cancel before you have paid off your phone, then you'd have to pay the difference.
In the case you arenâ(TM)t paying for the product I could agree. When you are paying for the product, then itâ(TM)s simply double or triple dipping on their side.
Given China has about 4 times the population of the USA and is a manufacturing powerhouse, to consume double of the US, means China is not doing too badly. In fact this probably shows how wasteful the US is in energy consumption.
Sounds like a variant of the journals model: get universities to contribute papers and then charge them for access.
Maybe it’s time for universities to have an open source distributed system for this sort of thing?
The price point isnâ(TM)t too bad, but it is another subscription. The main thing here is that the office related stuff (Pages, Keynote, Numbers) was available without a subscription or purchase, so Iâ(TM)m curious where this leaves them? Will they still be available without this bundle?
DCI : “Drones, Cronies and Idiots” policy?
Since were in the business of relabelling this, could we not just rename Mar a Lago to Greenland?
Consider a number of Microsoft products, such as VS Code, have had the AI on by default, leaving people looking for ways to disable it. So, it is not out of line for people to not catch that Microsoft did the opposite first once. And even then, people are going to be suspicious that it won’t “accidentally” become the default in a future update.
The problem I have is they are being shoved stem our throats whether we want them or not. In many cases they work out to an investor jerk-off feature than real value.
The marketing item âoeuses AIâ comes off as more of a bio hazard symbol to me than anything useful. I interpret it as a lot of hand waving instead of real value. If AI is solving something useful then sell me that point, otherwise itâ(TM)s going to signal to me something that is cloud dependent and potentially near future e-waste.
The problem is not the heat from you computer or the heat from the power plant. Simply speaking, that heat would just vanish into space. The problem is the CO2, which causes heat to be reflected back to earth. And the reflected heat is mostly coming from sunlight, your 2000W computer doesn't contribute as much as the sun sends to us. Not even including the heat in the power plant.
True, now I need to look at what research says. Is it CO2 only, or is there a combined effect?
** MAXIMUM TERMINALS ACTIVE. TRY AGAIN LATER **
