I don’t necessarily disagree.

Though it does raise concerns about government identity systems and fascist governments…

I grew up thinking that was a ridiculous anachronism, but looking at how far the US has fallen, I do understand the concern.

Imho the best option is just OS level enforcement. You buy a device, you set up accounts on them, some can be kid accounts, those ones have their web fetches always include their restrictions.

This is horseshit.

It is worth remembering that many of those who champion Digital Sovereignty today were silent back in 2006, when the open ISO/IEC ODF standard — the pillar of Digital Sovereignty — was announced: not only did they not listen to us during all these years, but in some cases they greeted us with a condescending smile.

If we can speak of Digital Sovereignty in Europe today, it is thanks to The Document Foundation and LibreOffice community members at large, who kept the flag of open-source office suites flying when everyone was predicting their demise, and who continued to develop the only truly open and standard format that guarantees Digital Sovereignty, as it provides full user control over content.

The answer to this, is “thank you for your service”. It is / was genuinely valuable. That being said, arguments about what people said or agreed with in the past is irrelevant to discussions about how to move forward.

The basic premise of this kind of arguing is a smell that you don’t actually have a real argument to lean on. It’s like credential dropping, it’s a heuristic that hints at what could be a likelier truth than another, based purely on debate metadata, but that’s it, and by their nature / definition, heuristics are constantly wrong.

Insisting on a white knight campaign to make a file format standard when you are not the standard file saving platform is Quixotic. It does not make you an ally of Microsoft to meet users where they’re at.

The EU government mandating a certain file format might actually move the needle, a niche documenting software’s defaults will not. This is why Microsoft’s famous playbook was “Embrace, Extend, Extinguish”, not “try and force a niche number of users into making this a thing somehow” (of course, Microsoft has also tried and failed the latter playbook numerous times).

Social media needs regulation for everyone, and I’m deeply concerned about the impact of ID verification on the open web, but at the same time, given the clear harms, it’s hard to argue with people attempting some form of regulation, even if limited and imperfect.

No, as someone who has grown up and seen the change, it is vastly different.

I mean sort of, but it’s a parenting issue in the way that smoking was for our grandparents, but in some ways, much worse.

With smoking back in the day, our grandparents were addicted to it, and inadvertently modelled that behaviour for our parents (or for other people’s kids who thought they looked cool), leading way more of our parents generation to smoke, even though they started growing up being aware of the risks and the impact it was having on their parents.

Social media is operating like that, but one difference is that smoking mostly cost people money… It did also cost them time, but most of that time was paid in years of their lives at the end. Social media is costing everyone their time constantly, day in - day out, and sapping their attention, focus, and willpower… Leaving social media addicted parents even less bandwidth to try and make sure their kids grow up different then smoking parents.

I was basing my assessment on the content of the article.

We’re a small company so I do the opposite and am avoiding any co-authored tag being applied to the code I publish.

I review and test my code before it’s published to make sure that it works and that it’s the right solution to the problem, and I’m the one responsible for fixing it if it goes wrong late at night in prod.

That was the case when I was using Intellisense and codegen tools and that’s still the case now.

That makes me the author.

Anything else is a lie, a violation of engineering ethics, and is flat out not SOC2, nor regulatorily compliant for anything that matters.

Acquaint with better people.

Trash article and consequently, I no longer trust this outlet.

You want to write an article about purchasing HIMARS then write an article about that. Talk about their role and capabilities and alternatives.

This is just trash that says 'the US used HIMARS in Iran and the US in Iran is bad therefore HIMARS bad. Like yeah, the US also used solar panels in Iran are they bad too?

Ukraine has overwhelming found HIMARs effective in their defense against Russia, is that even mentioned once in the article?

/im14AndThisIsDeep

How about a fund that spreads out the money globally?

How about reinstating US international AID at a bare minimum?

Pretty horseshit to act like they trained AI on only American data so only Americans should benefit.

What about the literal entire rest of the world? They get nothing right?

Just another example of America exploiting the world for their own benefit. Even the good ones are so corrupted by their system that they do it without realizing.

Why?

In North America I would guess coyote, in Europe, I would guess a fox or feral dog chased him until he found somewhere to hide from it.

Could also just be another cat. Big Tom cats have a tendency to chase other cats around.

deleted by creator

They don’t have to be as good to replace us.

This is too dismissive.

Industrialization and automation has already eliminated an entire class of work that was otherwise there.

In a hunter gathered society or an early industrial society there was always work for everyone, in modern capitalist society, there quite frankly isn’t, and that leads to huge numbers of people just being cast aside.

And AI may wipe out a huge number of the rest. I genuinely can’t possibly fathom how it will do anything but exacerbate every single one of society’s problems.

The US tariffing the world to bring back domestic manufacturing is not a dumb idea on its face.

The execution has been dumb and alienating but that is one of the few areas where it’s been baffling watching leftists flip from being anti free trade because it lets corporations siphon money and avoid regulation to suddenly being super pro free trade because Trump is against it.

Free trade is what has hollowed out North America’s manufacturing industries. Corporations have used it to effectively send money to poorer countries where labour is cheap while getting paid bonuses for “efficiencies”.

In a single country you can do things like set a minimum wage, with free trade companies can simply move manufacturing to somewhere with a lower minimum wage, pressuring governments to race to the bottom in terms of how badly they abuse their workers.

More righteous excuses to not read, think, or use your brain.

If I say the word Hitler, you stick your head in the sand and pretend they don’t exist.

Good luck changing the world by ignoring reality and not listening to people. I’m sure it’s a rational strategy that doesn’t play directly into the openly published playbooks from Russia and China that detail how polarization is how you break society.

Some of that money goes into producing Canadian Content which employs Canadian artists and the broader Canadian arts industry. That’s better then that money going to Hollywood and supporting the American arts industry.

Either way the benefits are just trickling down rather than going directly to artists, but with these laws more money stays local in Canada rather than going to the US.

You are arguing about whether that money should trickle down or be given directly to artists and that is quite frankly, completely irrelevant given that both options here (the rates increasing or the rates not increasing), don’t effect that.