> Meanwhile, developing countries like China and India are projected to account for 35-40% of total global emissions in the next decade, far outweighing the impact of individual lifestyle choices in the West.
Sure, but that's still mostly driven by Western demand for... Stuff. I'd like to see that share of global emissions if the West was still industrialised and didnt rely on China to be its factory
80% of China's manufacturing output is consumed domestically. Of the goods exported from China, only about 15% go to the United States. While that still represents a lot of exports in absolute terms, it's simply false to say that it's "mostly driven by Western demand for stuff".
> What you're saying is we should allow kids to buy tobacco, to gamble, to purchase Meth and Heroine because Kids get around restrictions anyway
This is false equivalence. All of the above are vices that objectively carry more harm than good. There's no inherent harm in using a computer, there's a subset of ways in which using a computer can be harmful, which kids can be taught how to avoid or navigate, there's no subset of meth use that isn't harmful
Well then it's good then computer will have the option to disable the harmful stuff, so a parent can let a kid use the good stuff without the harmful stuff.
All these "European social media" projects are, imo, cash grabs trying to capitalise on the populist "European digital sovereignty" sentiment.
If your goal was social media "built and run in Europe, ruled by our laws", you'd just host a Mastodon instance and donate those EU funds to Mastodon GmbH
There is an entire industry in europe built to take EU money and produce nothing but a stack of papers. This would just set up some OVH/Hetzner instances of open source software. It is all a very expensive joke.
> As long as you trust the government that gave out the ID
I'm a citizen of a European Union member, I trust my government to issue me an ID and use said ID in my interactions with the state, I do not trust my state with anything more than that.
That is exactly the trust I mean. You need to trust that country X gives out valid IDs. If you have sketchy company Y giving out IDs to everyone, you probably would not trust any attributes derived from that ID. If you trust that a country gives out valid IDs, you can trust the information derived from that ID. You do not really need to trust your government any more than that for this system to work.
Ok, I will do my homework on the proposal of the EU Identity Wallet but from my skimming on topics about it, it the tokens derived from my ID would be able to de-anonymise me online.
Maybe stupid question, we keep seeing "LLM figures out math problem humans couldn't, LLM finds security vulnerability by looking at hexdumps for 6 months straight. How hard or expensive would it be to let some LLMs loose on reverse engineering all the proprietary driver binary blobs?
People mentioning forking Android is hard, how easy do LLMs make this?
The Italian digital ID wallet is already in fact banning GrapheneOS and other ROMs [1], the EU doesn't mandate that member states have to allow non-Android/iOS apps [2]
Realistically, what you're asking for won't happen unless there's a strong push for Federalisation.
Unfortunately, most Eastern Bloc countries are led into the false belief that the EU is encroaching on their ways of life and "making them eat ze bugs", and the Brussels elite is more concerned with using their slim remaining political capital to push restrictions on internet freedoms rather than federalisation.
Im gonna speculate they were referring to the part of private equity where you buy businesses to load them up with debt to buy more businesses ad nauseum
You can't load someone else with debt. That's obviously illegal. When you buy a company it isn't "them" anymore. And the new owners have exactly the same rights to borrow money as the old ones.
That's true when the debt is taken it is taken by the company (at the direction of the acquiring firm)... and maybe the bigger issue is that banks should be a whole lot more judicious in extending that debt. But some firms have found a heck of a loophole in buying a company, running an extremely high debt line, paying the acquiring firm (themselves) handsomely and then innocently whistling when the business collapses and a bunch of real economic value is erased.
Doing that to a company isn't an activity that should be rewarded since you're destroying, rather than creating, economic value. It is absolutely an exploit or flaw in our system and no more than one person should have been able to get away with it.
It isn't rewarded. If a business you buy collapses, you lose money. You seem to be falling for the conspiracy theory that private equity wants to collapse businesses.
I have no idea why leveraged buyouts are legal. What a bizarre mechanism for acquisition that feels so easy to just shut down with a relatively simple rule.
Restricting a previously purchased business from taking out debt feels harder to regulate, but someone smart could probably figure out a few good rules to stop the majority of abuses.
Do you think non-recourse mortgage (the dominant type in USA) also should be banned? VC finds a bank that borrows them money to buy X, with X as collateral. It is exactly the same.
The mass selloff of assets and absurd cost-cutting is caused by new owners not giving a damn about the future of acquired company, its workers nor clients - it has nothing to do with leveraged buyout itself.
Sure, but that's still mostly driven by Western demand for... Stuff. I'd like to see that share of global emissions if the West was still industrialised and didnt rely on China to be its factory
reply