The EU can control the entire world through legislation.

And then they find out that they can't. Just look at Clearview.

The EU keeps sending out press releases how they have yet again fined Clearview a billion dollars, without realizing that it is a U.S. based company without any operations in the EUSSR. According to Wikipedia:

If the EUSSR can create random legislation that applies in other countries to people and entities without ties to the EUSSR, then the U.S. can do so as well. Bye, abortion.

And I know that EUSSR shills will vote this into oblivion, but you cannot change facts with a downvote. Let me know when you've been able to collect a single penny from Clearview.

People gamble because they crave novelty/risk, but gambling addicts ignore that the same risk even exists. I suspect AI has many of the same social effects because it easily provides novelty with largely the same kind of at least semi-randomized results and has an acceptable accuracy risk for the occassional users. It also has the same problem for the addicted who ignore that the risk of mistake exists or that the novel claims produced are nested together factoids retrieved based on popularity and repetition rather than accuracy or any physical/logical/proof-based criteria.

I don't know in which country you live, but here I live, there is the freedom of speech as recorded in an apparently little-known law called ... The First Amendment.

As long as you're not libelous/slanderous/violating secret clearances or gag orders, you can post anything the F you want.

The article as about the United States Postal Service.

The last time they delivered anything to Germany was in 1945.

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.

You admit then that Trump's goal is to destroy the US as a major power? That he wants to disable its population to destroy its military capability? That his goal is to get money from Putin's take-over of the various Soviet assets?

Kickbacks for the influential and powerful, enabled by technology facilitated manipulative messaging that targeted the weakest minds to generate the impression of popularity. Social psychology made into a weapon against society.

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.