Its why I have said many times that companies need higher taxes... BUT adjust the tax "looholes" to what they were previously.. (previous incarnations of the corporate tax basis, companies were (via tax deductions) to invest in both R&D but also their people.. (ie: High CEO salaries were more heavily taxed but paying "average" workers more actually DECREASED their tax basis.. (in the 70's and 80's with essentially turning corporations into "people" it meant paying the worker less "saved" the company money (and of course H1B's are not considered employees from a tax basis, they are considered "leased services" from a tax basis (and leasing is highly advantagous to a company since "cost" is deductable.

In short, fixing the problem will take time because it took decades to break it. Companies of course will fight it because its going to hurt CEO bottom lines.

That's what I've been saying... The second he was elected.. its a strong indication that society has reached its breakdown point.. (in terms of intelligence and hate).. Blaming the devil for being evil just stupid.. Its really the fault of the cultists/voters..

The problem is AWS is still a US company.. so even if the Data RESIDES in europe... they still have to deal with the fact that a US based company is stll subject to the whims of the dictatorial demands of the US goverment (especially THIS administration).. Personally every company (at least every non-US company) should divest themselves of any US resources... It would bolster Europe's own economy, and no longer subject to the foolishness that is the US government. (the days of abiding by agreements and laws seem to be over within the US, so why would you trust any US cloud provider.. I don't care where the Data actually sits, its who has (or can gain) control over it that matters.

But see that's the thing.. its not "cheap junk".. (a popular misconception).. its simply direct to consumer.

Look.. you buy a 100 pot from say Bed Bath and Beyond (yes I know they are dead... don't worry about it)..
But the actual cost to manufacture said pot is closer to 10 dollars.. then the distributer adds on their cut, then the freight forwarder adds their cut, then the reseller adds on their cut (plus logistics and inventory costs).. so at each step of the way, everyone is adding on 10-20% on top of THEIR last cost..).. and its not like the 10 dollars it costs to make is profit.. if it costs 10 to make, then its really 22 out the door from the manufacturer.

VS..

You van buy it direct (or as close to direct) from the manufacturer or their preferred reseller for 30 dollars (maybe 40 after shipping and taxes).. you have saved 50%..for the SAME pot. Everything you buy has at LEAST 3-4 hands involved to get it front of you.. (sometimes up to 6 depending on origin.. and even if a reseller is acting as OEM (to rebadge product X into product Y under their name).

So despite what a lot people want you think.. its not "cheap junk" its the same stuff you buy every day just with less middlemen... And the modern SMB market thrives on this because it allows for more resellers to drop ship from the manufacturer or distributer without neeeding to hold inventory. (reducing waste on warehouses by multiple resellers/distributers and allows for more regionalized sales/marketing/support, thus creating more jobs)..

All this "closing of holes" does is benefit large retailers because they can afford to hold inventory and because they alread have other products they sell.. adding more doesn't increase jobs.. and as there are LESS options for acquiring products, the 100 dollar pot can easily become 120 or 130 since.... you need the pot and its not like you have other options to get it cheaper. And while price colluding is considered "illegal" in many markets (not all).. PROVING it is more difficult when your data is limited to a few retailers that are accused of such an action. The reason they can't do that right now is with more SMB's selling the same things (or similar things).. they can't collude as much because the others act a price check.. (ie: Hey, I won't buy that 180 pot because I can get it cheaper from cheapyjoe.com for 65.. so I have to sell mine at 70 and market my option with other incentives or lean on my size to justify the other 5 dollars..

Ultimately its going to kill the SMB and midtier markets.. because most SMB's these days do drop shipments (they do order processing for larger companies, who then drop ship an item directly so they don't have to take on the cost of inventory locally).. large enterprises (looking at you Amazon) can affort to order in bulk (even with tariffs).. but for the SMB space.. it essentially eliminates them.. they they won't be price competative with the larger companies that use their size to leverage volume discounts.

So yeah... great for the 1%.. for everyone else its a kick in the crotch.

It didn't "redirect" it.. it was always there.. but the "noise floor" has shifted.. Europe, UK, and US had these rules in place.. so by closing the door on 1 place, the noise looks more obvious on the other two.. (no one is buying "extra" stuff).

Latin makes sense because its the root language of much of the western world... and a lot of english words are directly pulled from Latin.. So while an indepth knowledge of it doesn't really matter.. certainly an understanding is useful because it helps to understand the language as a whole.

Its called tossing the populous a bone.. Making it "seem" like he's not incredibly partisian when in fact, NASA without a budget can't "DO" anything.. He's already slashed NASA budget, and doesn't want to fund them.. so nominating someone to run it means what?.. nothing... Its like calling someone the CEO of a company but lacking any real power, budget, or direction.. they have a title and that's it.

Correction, you don't NEEEEDDDD it , but its certainly a highly recommended item to have because it addresses smoke/fumes/odors/etc... But most homes do not have an externally venting hood..(there is no legal requirement to have one)

There are only 3 ways for the government to make "informed" decisions..

1: Voluntary information.. (this prevents #2).. now of course voluntary information has its own flaws and can be used to skew things.. but statistically speaking its why you use a large data set.. not just "Jim".. because you want enough data to essentially week out the outlayers..

2: Government direct scrutinary, this is where the government is ACTIVELY overseeing the impact on some things.. but this has 2 problems.. 1: Unless they are watching EVERYTHING (and why would you want them to?) any data they have will skewed as well.. because its going to be purely self-serving (to itself because they can narrow the scope of what they want to know vs. what they SHOULD know for context). 2: Do you REALLY want the government to know EVERYTHING you are doing (or might be doing).

3: Ignore the impact of their decisions and make unilateral decisions based on "gut" (which is what the current administration is doing right now). This has the most impact on everything and depending on what the government feels, you are going to have essentially a LOT of losers and a very narrow (tiny) number of winners (usuing the winners are the ones that already win becaue they have the resources to weather changes a lot better than most and/or have the most influence because of existing connections).

Historically voluntary information was the best way to obtain things because while you find out about X.. you also get insight into A-G as well. But this only works when the government is percieved as a "partner" and you have a cordial relationship with them.. Right now, we are in a "REALLY BAD marriage" relationship with the government and we still have to work together.. which means every bit of information that isn't strictly NEEEDED.. is often ignored or viewed with suspicion and derision at best, and hate/anger at worst.

Its not that there is no reward for this.. (and anyone that responds based on some "reward" is definately going to skew data in a particularly dangerous way..

But what certainly is a concern and why people stop responding is the rise of data theft.. the rise of scams, the rise of people using legititamte concerns for nefarious reasons that has turned people off from responding to such inquiries.. As people become aware that ALL data CAN be used for harm, they are growing increasingly cautious with unsolicitied requests for such because they don't KNOW the reason its being asked.. and lack an understanding on HOW that specific question may harm them.. (note, I say them because self-preservation always comes before any group think which is why we are in such a pickle on soooo many things).

Looks like e found the idiot in the room.. Usually it takea a few days... Thank you for reducing that time.

Why?... There is literally nothing in the US that is worth seeing over the issues that are going on... and overtime there are will be less things to see/do becuase of the changes being done now..

The reality is its better, safer, cleaner to visit other countries than the US.. (hell, I think Cambodia is overall safer (in parts) than the US (as a whole) and there are active armed conflicts there).

China does't care about the labor issue..

Remember, China has learned a lot from the US.. and one lession the US taught them is:

1: Steal the tech first.. (People bitch at China, but the US started it by stealing everyone else's tech to grow its nacent industries).
2: Focus on the high value items (Labor isn't high value, but design/architecture/marketing/sales IS high value.. those that "build" are the "necessary" step needed but can be replaced with anyone.
3: Create a dependancy on them by favorable terms (again for labor) and association which in tern creates a favorable set of policies.. to continue with that dependancy..

First off, not very true... China rose up because its primary focus has been the LONG game.. which means tangible skills that are focused on production.. (and the long game is what most other countries excel at.. vs. the US is very much a short term thinker (in the past it used to be what was good for 10-20 years even 30 years, now its more what's good for 3-5 years (ie: within the confines of my election).. and anything else is someone else's issue.. If what I build today looks good now great.. who cares if it crashes next week.. that becomes THAT guys issue and we can run on that campaign of THEIR failure, not mine). China and Japan especially tend to focus on the 30-50 year term.. What has the greatest benefit at the longest stretch of time with the least disruption.. (the current disruption is more of a "if we CAN, we will limit it, otherwise if we have to.. its ok" mindset).

Look at that primary winners in the US (In terms of College Persuits and company demands) : Legal (Law), Marketing, Sales, Logistics.. All skills that have to do with monetary gain, but not actually building anything and thus very little long term prospects with high demands for someone else to do the labor (because the labor part is highly negotable)..
VS
Look at the primary winners in China (in terms of College Pursuits and company demands): Math, Science, Engineering, Logistics, Product Development, AI (all skills that have to do with being able to actually create/generate.. not necessarily the highest winners in terms of money in the short term, but for the long term.. skills needed to displace others.. (after all, you can only sell so many product X before you have nothing else.. vs. if you are always churning out new products and enhancing/revising products.. you ALWAYS have something to sell).

And lets also face facts.. the US stole many technological advancements from others during its rise as well..

Notable examples: Germany and their Rocketry/Aviation... peration Paperclip, the U.S. brought over 1,600 German scientists, engineers, and technicians to the US after World War II to work on guided missiles, jet and rocket engines, and aeronautics, including individuals associated with the Nazi Party and their wartime projects like the V-2 missile.

Brits with their Textile Technology - figures like Francis Cabot Lowell engaged in industrial espionage, memorizing the designs of British textile machinery to bring the technology to the U.S. and establish American textile manufacturing.

Forced Tech Transfer - The whole notion of Mandatory joint ventures came from the US who did that with MANY MANY other countries and companies

And during much of the 1800-1900's the US government ACTIVELY encouraged intellectual piracy and appropriation of mechanical and scientific innovations from Europe, Asia, and the Middle east to jump start their own technical advancement).

https://theworld.org/stories/2014/02/18/us-complains-other-nations-are-stealing-us-technology-america-has-history
https://news.sky.com/story/cyber-is-changing-war-but-it-s-peace-we-should-worry-about-11615783
https://apnews.com/general-news-b40414d22f2248428ce11ff36b88dc53

“The message we are sending to China today is, Do as I say, not as I did,’ ” said Peter Andreas, professor at Brown University’s Watson Institute for International and Public Affairs. “The fact of the matter is that the U.S. was the world’s hotbed of intellectual property theft.”

So if anything, the US is pissed because China LEARNED from the US and US HISTORY and just applied the same rules to them... If anything, China is playing the SAME game that got the US its current role.. (Soft power by being allies with other countries.. sharing its tech, helping other countries which both lessen military reasons, but also creates a soft dependancy on them and thus creates a market that is more favourable towards them).. In fact, the US owes its very position BECAUSE of that soft power it exerted and the understanding that if you could get the US to make a deal, they would honor the deal.. (Cheato is throwing out that notion, which is far more distasterous.. The only real difference between some poor countries in the world making a deal and the US was the concern those poor countries and their ability/willingness to honor the agreements/terms long term... vs. the US WOULD (even as a president/party would change... when you throw that away.. you have nothing.. which means others become a lot more attractive.. and right now China is the most attractive in trying to woo countries with the notion of "stability" and honoring long term agreements..

With Regards Intel.. China doesn't care about Intel.. there is really nothing that Intel is doing that China isn't doing or already doing better.. What Intel has that China doesn't have and you can't steal is: PATENTS and MARKETSHARE.. There is literally nothing stopping any company.. (Broadcom, Micron, Qualcom, etc... from removing Intel from the market other than Intel (and AMD) own the patents to a TON of tech and Intel's long name carries weight... those two things keep intel in the forefront.. because as companies keep using intel for compatability with existing tech, it keeps them in demand.. Its one reason why Intel HATES ARM and everyone else LOVES ARM.. ARM (and RISC) are both opensource models that work quite well.. and as their adoption increases abd become more and more mainstream, it weakens the dependancy on Intel and their patents.. Now ARM still pays royalities to Intel and AMD for the use of their tech.. (its one reason why software translators like Rosetta in Apple for example) can translate x86 Instructions on ARM processors at near chip speed.

So what China wants is NOT intel (they are a slowly sinking boat).. what China wants is "legitamacy".. ie: companies to use their products/technology.. THAT is what will win them the battle.. And its the same for a lot of domestic tech that China has.. like their Jets, and other tech... And why the US keeps trying to slam China.. Most of their stuff is as good or better even.. (payment processing systems, avionics, etc...) but because its mostly domestic and not used outside of China, companies and countries like to bash it to keep other countries/companies from adopting.. because as we know, as market share grows.. so does demand and momentum can become a "standard" very wuickly to displace others. So if anything.. yes, China would LOVE intel to continue to fall (and AMD right behind it since AMD does essentially the same thing as Intel..(only better) and owns more patents on future tech (intel owns patents on legacy tech that most future tech is built on)..

Having lived in China and going back to the US.. in many respects its like going from the future (China) to the past (US)..