The number referred to High-Level waste.

I lost focus as I collected the data for the argument. The point was not the volume, but that the entirety is stored within the countries that produced it. The OP was (wrongly) arguing that the EU would send dangerous waste outside.

The existing law is every online service with over 50 million EU users is a gatekeeper. They started with social media which are easy because they boast a user count. Now they reach cloud which make sit more difficult to count users that use the services implemented on these clouds. We don't have yet the announcement yet, it is likely they will also classify EU cloud providers as well, not only AWS and Azure.

Educate yourself. I can exemplify about France.

Nuclear waste is a very small amount. "As of the most recent inventory, France had roughly 1,850 cubic meters of vitrified high-level waste in storage, a volume that would fit inside a modest single-story house." https://scienceinsights.org/wh... They are stored in Marcoule and La Hague (a small town in France, not the well-known Dutch city), where the vitrified canisters are produced.

A geological storage, 500 meters below the town of Bure has been constructed and is pending final operation licencing. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

For the exhaustive list of every place that owns nuclear waste in France (every power plant, transport site, research center, etc.), you can consult:

* the map provided by the Government https://inventaire.andra.fr/in...
* the map by Greenpeace https://www.greenpeace.fr/cart...

We don't have the details to understand if this is cheap as you are assuming. The summary says "hundreds of thousands of sensors". That sounds just as much expensive as an MRI machine. It's probably very valuable data for medical doctors, but I wouldn't assume it is cheap. They claim 50% of healthcare costs, which is still very expensive for a gym setting (ballpark price for an MRI scan is 500-1000 $ or €).

Author's Right is a legal system, different than Copyright systems. The works you describe, where individual attribution is impossible due to the fusion of contributions (e.g. video game artwork created in the name of a corporation) are referred to as Collective Works and protected as well in Author's Right systems.

Because fundamentally, Author's Right include a "right to widthdraw" any work they don't want to see published anymore. For example in France this is codified in Statutes as L121-4 CPI. It will be present in a way or another in national legislations in European countries, as it is understood as a fundamental right. It is very unlikely the EU Member States will want to we move to a system where Authors don't have a control over their works (before the work reaches public domain, long after every contributing Author passed away).

Thanks for correcting to my wrong information.

1) It was actually DCSSI (Direction Centrale de Securite des Systemes d'information) as a branch of the Ministry of Defence until 2009 when it was elevated to the rank of an Agency.
2) Agencies in France are prefixed with AN for Agence Nationale. For example in France ANSES (environment safery), ANSP (public health), ANR (Research), ANPE (employment agency), therefore renaming it AN + SSI.
3) ANSI is unrelated (the French equivalent of ANSI is AFNOR) and therefore not ambiguous.

We generally trust packages produced by distro developers, whether it's Arch, Debian or others. A distro packager could be a mole, but it's easy for them to get caught. What we don't trust are user repositories, where anons like you and me can publish a binary. Assuming the Debian developers are trustworthy, you can trust Debian. If you take your Debian and add PPA (custom repositories, originally developed for Ubuntu) then you're susceptible to malware added by the PPA publisher.

Personally I use Gentoo. As it is source-based, user repositories are composed of compile scripts, which are easy to read. You can see for yourself if they look fishy.

Wikpedia reports different interpretations.
1) In the Conestoga wagon, in the absence of a driver bench, the coachman would place himself on the left horse to control the animals with the whip in his right hand. Then the coachman would prefer to drive on the right, to sit closer to the centre of the road and better check the carriages coming in the opposite direction. Therefore Pennsylavnia (origin of this wagon) started using right hand driving in 1792. The wagon became popular in continental Europe, providing incentive for driving to the right. It was not much used in Britain.

2) First motor vehicles had the hand brake outside of the vehicle, to the right side, to be used with the stronger right arm. So the driver seat was on the right. Later manufacturers placed the hand brake in the centre and some also moved the driving seat to the left, to keep the hand brake for the right hand. Then similarly to the horse-drawn wagon, when the driver sits on the left, they prefer to drive on the right of the road.

Many countries swapped to facilitate business with their neighbours, long before individual motor vehicles. Even assuming initial random distribution of left or right, it is enough that one or two big countries to have the same convention for everybody else to follow. And so it happened... By the end of the 18th Century, France drives right due to the popularity of the Conestoga; soon after Napoleon imposes right hand driving in conquered Germany and Netherlands. Neighbour countries chose to swap to right to match this big nucleus.

Belgium swapped in 1899, Austria-Hungary after the empire was split (at end of WW1), Spain did not have a national rule and chose in 1920 to follow France, Portugal followed Spain in 1928. Austria changed under influence of Nazi Germany. Adding that Russia had always been driving to right (a decree of 1752), that's enough momentum for everybody else in Europe (and their colonies) to swap to the right. Except Britain for not having neighbours.

Pollution by-products from burning natural gas are NOx, SOx, particulates. As compared to burning coal, burning natural gas produces 4.5 to 7 times less NOx, 2000 times less SOx, 80 times less particulate (per kg of fuel). Replacing oil with natural gas is already a great progress. Sources: https://www.engineeringtoolbox... https://www.toolgrit.com/tools...

It is fine in a (truly) free market where there are dozens of actors from different parts of the world. There are the local actors, there is Tesla, now BYD. This diversity creates resilience. The more the independent actors, the less an individual actor is able to collapse the infrastructure.

Right; but I was replying to "What the EU should have said: Facebook are banned from..."

My point is: The Commission CANNOT, TODAY, ask Meta to exclude AI from a product, because they are not competent to do so. However the Commission CAN, TODAY, ask Meta to open up the market, based on their core competence and on existing legislation.

The commission can propose to ban Ai from Whatsapp, and the chances for that to be voted are null, as no State has expressed will for this to happen, and no party has ben supporting the idea. It is also clearly a government overreach.