I'm sure that they'll enjoy their Russian made gear.

They never bought anything to start with. The U.S. is stil the largest, financial contributor to NATO.

In 2024, the U.S. spent $2,239 per capita. Spain $366. Portugal $360. Source.

Don't worry, they'll come back after finding out that they are not able to build their own.

At least I won't have to worry about getting arrested for an offensive tweet.

Yet you failed to adequately argue against my points. I guess you agree.

Oh come one.

Apple can change that on a whim. But, let's say for argument's sake that all of a sudden, Apple would be somehow prohibited from using ARM. Do you have any idea what it will mean to the European economy if U.S. tech exports to the EU are stopped?

Intel, AMD, Microsoft. Facebook, Instagram, Google, Youtube. All those companies that they EU likes to tax (oh, I'm sorry, "fine" for some sort of made up violation) but are highly dependent on.

And let's not even try to get started on "but but but but the EU has smart people to". Yes, you do. And the smartest ones are all moving to the U.S. because they're taxed to death in Europe. I know hundreds, if not thousands.

Signed,

A tech-tax refugee from Europe now living in the Bay Area. (and I would never even consider going back to that socialist hellhole) Downvote all you want.

I don't know about you, but I don't give a shit about who visits gay bars and who doesn't.

It's 2025. Being gay is okay.

Ozzy Osbourne will rise from the grave for you.

The fact that an utter moron like you gets upvoted as Insightful says everything I need to know about the broken moderation system here on /.

Fuck. You.

Which is exactly the reason why they passed these laws. They have no meaningful AI innovation: all substantial innovation is happening in the U.S.

In other words: once again, the EUSSR is trying to leach money out of US companies using their "these laws are to protect the children" adagium.

This is getting really old really quick.

And any prosecutor worth their salt will explain to you that a city council enacting a policy banning a specific investigative method does not mean that it is unlawful for the police to actually use it as evidence during a criminal trial.

Also, I guess you are not familiar with the many exceptions to the poisonous tree doctrine.

People way smarter than you or me have solved that problem a long time ago. Courts determine intent (even past intent) based on observable actions. This is especially true in murder cases: someone pointing a gun at another's head and firing the trigger is a pretty good indication that the murderer intended to kill, even though they say it's just an accident.

Here, we observe that the EUSSR, like they did in the past, open an investigation into a wealthy foreign entity, and we know from the past that their true intention is to enrich their own coffers.

EUSSR wants more money from American companies, "for the children"...

That should be the headline.

(and downvoting me as troll does not change this fact)

Sure, I only have two grad degrees and am working on my third one. Yeah, I know nothing about scientific research. At all. Especially data. Totally clueless.

Nope nope nope, I recognize a flawed study written only to make headlines and get citations when I see one.

Oh, and also:

Riiiiiight.

From the study itself (pages 16 and 17):

As for the last one: "we're unsure if our data is what we think it is".

How the fuck did this even get peer-reviewed?

Ten years ago, I did a weekly road trip from San Jose to San Diego, traveling the 182 mile through the central valley every Friday and Sunday, for about 18 months for a contracting gig. It was one truck after another. Usually agricultural or just random trucking company.

Last weekend I did the same trip to see a friend. I swear that every third truck appeared to be an Amazon Prime truck. Absolutely nuts.