I would say that the iPod did that at least a few years before.

Did you not read my first response where I open with "there's some hypocrisy" and then ask what real world approach should be taken given that?

I think that's a relatively recent development (in the US, anyways).

Prior to the past few decades Democrats and Republicans were parts of the same communities: they'd go the same churches, shop in the same grocery stores, watched the same TV shows, maybe played disc golf at the same courses. Recently that has measurably changed (with the exception of the disc golf situation where there probably isn't data to substantiate the argument). The amount of overlap between Republicans and Democrats in the factors that broadly constitute "identity" has fallen off a cliff.

If this sounds like an interesting discussion, highly recommend the "Liliana Mason on Polarization and Political Psychology" episode of Sean Caroll's Mindscape podcast.

So... your recommendation would be the "make no meaningful impact on global hydrocarbon usage, and leave their people worse off in the process" approach?

The flaw in this analogy is that the doctor could stop smoking and improve their health in the exact same way that they're encouraging their patient to do. The Norwegians can't stop pumping oil and have any meaningful positive environmental impact. But regardless, I think professionally duty requires that even a chain-smoking doctor advise that their patients quit smoking.

There's some hypocrisy but I'm not sure what path you're suggesting here. Should Norway stop pumping gas/oil so that people go buy it from Saudi/Iran/Russia/USA/Venezuela instead? They'd make no meaningful impact on global hydrocarbon usage, and leave their people worse off in the process.

Doesn't seem far off. The EU levies tariffs on Chinese EV makers as high as ~45% based on their calculations of the degree to which the price is unfairly subsidized, plus a preexisting 10% tariff on all car imports.

There was some validity to this sort of argument when their base models came with 8 GB of memory and 128/256 GB of storage. That was always pretty borderline and you needed to factor in ~$400 on top of the base price to get it to a reasonable spot.

These have 16 GB memory and 512 GB storage. That's plenty for a large portion of the market.

What comparable laptop can you get for cheaper?

Agreed. I used their Deco units for a few years for a whole-home mesh network. Plug them in, select a few config options in the app, job done.

Weren't these breaches achieved by stealing auth tokens from the AWS environment of a non-Salesforce third party? Seems unfair to call this a "Salesforce vulnerability".

How the Salesforce breaches unfolded: root causes identified

The article isn't clear on the proportion, but some of these products were pulled for not having FCC authorization confirming they operate within allowed radio frequency limits. The RF spectrum is a limited, shared resource and someone operating a noisy device is everyone's problem. It goes beyond just "buyer beware".

I'm agnostic on whether it's reasonable to bar products from certain companies on much vaguer national security grounds.

That's exactly what "gross negligence" means. It describes cases where someone exhibits a conscious and voluntary disregard for the need to take reasonable care, in a way that's likely to cause foreseeable harm.

That doesn't comport with other language in the document. Article 10.6:

So, when "measures taken to execute the detection order" (i.e., chat scanning technology) detect CSAM, the service provider needs to get in touch with Europol with their official report (including content, as referenced in section 12).

They also go into more details on the ways in which a provider may "become aware" of CSAM on their platform:

Where a "detection order" is the way in which the EU will mandate that a service provider deploy the chat scanning detection technologies. It seems clear that the legislation's intent is that the detection technologies alert the service provider of the spread of CSAM so that they can inform the authorities - not just to block it from being sent.

Europa.eu

I'm not a lawyer, and would be happy to be corrected by one, but that sure reads like they have to send the blocked content to the authorities.

What is there to "see through"? I'd be shocked if any organization large enough to have a PR/marketing department didn't have an automated search set up on Facebook, Twitter, and Google looking for mentions of their own name.