I challenge you to find another economic system that has worked in history, because it sure isn’t communism if that’s what you’re referencing. This is also aside from the fact that Europe is also a subscriber to capitalism.
America is the most successful country on this earth and we bankroll most of the rest of the world but somehow we’re always the bad guys.
As an American I’d be very happy if my tax dollars stopped getting spent on Europe.
Somehow US Americans managed in about a year and some to almost singlehandedly fund complete destruction of already impoverished and entrapped society of 2.3 million people, most of them younger than 18. Nevermind the pressure or direct military attacks on other nations to not intervene.
And you wonder why you're viewed as baddies.
I'd be happy if your tax dollars stopped going outside of US, too.
> America is the most successful country on this earth
According to what metrics? life expectancy? crime rate? wealth per inhabitant? education? work life balance? health care? happiness? incarceration rate? human rights? corruption? freedom of press?
American tax dollars aren't spent in Europe or elsewhere in the world for some altruistic reason. The US want to maintain their hegemony and prevent other powers from emerging. They certainly don't care about Europeans or Taiwanese or whoever.
> I challenge you to find another economic system that has worked in history, because it sure isn’t communism if that’s what you’re referencing.
Not that I'm a big fan of communism or China, but communist China has been doing pretty well, and is getting more innovative than the US
The part of China that is innovative is not communist. They have the most free-market labor market, the most free-market regulations in everything except media (which is heavily controlled by the state).
China is the most brutally capitalist society in the world, with a dictator sitting on top managing it at the margins and ensuring media will never be free and threaten the communist party.
There is also the good old: "We can't discuss changes because there is nothing better already existing. There can't be anything better because we cannot change"
Installed programs are the weakest link in the security of an OS like windows - should users not use programs? Users are just as likely to download a sketchy program as a sketchy extension, is that not even more severe of a risk?
User education and better marketplace policing are the solution, not silly blanket statements like that.
Running untrusted code is the weakest link. In an ideal world users would be writing the code themselves or running a verified, trusted, signed and hashed reproduceable build binary.
I agree with this however that would limit just about all software unless it has been properly and deeply inspected by people paid to do just this. If I go through the project pages of all the software that comes with Linux I know I will not find code reviews at each artifact release version that has been reviewed by the NCC group, Google project zero, etc... FWIW it could be said that most of the software in use today is untrusted in that regard, even the most commonly used browsers. Some may think browsers have so many eyes on them that a subtle weakness could not be introduced but I also disagree with that. A more widely used application is an even bigger juicy delicious target for nation state actors to get employed and introduce multiple subtle changes that work in conjunction with one another and OS design flaws. I would wager that every browser has malicious actors either contributing subtle weaknesses or possibly sleeping until they are given orders.
If you were forced to step back and rank the features on your phone you found most important, ones you couldn't live without, not mere conveniences, you would find it's only a few main things. Securing those things can be achieved with simple, free, auditable, reproduceable, off the shelf tools, they just lack the conveniences that we get from the corporate apps with masses of random developer add-ons.
I use voice and text. I've only had a smart phone for a couple years and I hate it. Whoever it was here that gave me the nickname Jethro Gibbs was right. I am currently looking for a real for really real dumb phone that can do VoWifi basically SIP over ipsec because my LTE coverage is awful. I do not consider anything related to wireless to be secure as it is closed source and the carriers care not about their customers. source: I worked for one and helped build out their network They can't even kick China back out of the FBI lawful intercept API's, even to this day.
Linking this to any former current or upcoming administration is just silly political bias and grandstanding. By your own admission it was already wholly ineffective.
The German cars will at least attempt to dim the beam or auto turn off high beams, in Europe they’ll even divert the beam around you but for some reason we don’t allow that in the US. I drive a BMW as my daily and the computer makes every effort to not blind people.
GM and Ford I just get constantly blinded by gigantic pillars of LEDs, regardless if I’m driving another truck or a low sports car.
Tesla is the worst - their DRLs are blinding if you're off to the side of them in a sedan like I drive. Apparently, they're supposed to be USER aimed / aligned AFTER delivery, but pretty sure only 5% of drivers have even the faintest of clues about any setting in their car other than "pair phone".
I'm not saying no other cars have issues, including the obviously misaimed 70s light-in-a-box bulbs. And don't get me started on the number of cars with ZERO lights, or only DRLs (no tail lights) at night here in the Bay Area (CA).
I am constantly struggling to avoid glare at night from crazy lights. If I could wave my hand and fix one brand, without question it would be Teslas - they're systematically bad. All others seem like one-offs (bad maintenance, post-accident/replacement-misaligned, etc).
>>And don't get me started on the number of cars with ZERO lights, or only DRLs (no tail lights) at night here in the Bay Area (CA).
As sort of a personal mea culpa, shortly after I got a new car, I realized I had done a nighttime drive with just daytime running lights. I leave the lights on Auto usually but it's relatively easy to hit the headlight dial with a finger when activating the turn signal. (Or, as I think was the case here I had just gotten a state inspection and the lights were just turned off.) I'm more aware now. Something seemed a bit off but it was a fairly new car.
Most Tesla headlights have matrix functionality (the ability selectively dim areas of the headlight that would be aimed at another car) but this is not enabled in the US.
> in Europe they’ll even divert the beam around you but for some reason we don’t allow that in the US
Is this true? Moving beams away from incoming traffic certainly was a feature (called "Active High Beam") on Volvo XC90 that I rented in California a few years ago. I've no idea if this was a US market car, or imported from somewhere, but it certainly existed and worked.
All of the German automakers have this feature that they all call something different, but yes. The current NHTSA regulations prevent it from being deployed in the US, as another commenter pointed out though it seems like the NHTSA finally relented and approved it so I’d expect it to start showing up. My car already has the hardware and it’s a software switch to flip it on, so I imagine most other newer German cars are the same.
My understanding is that in the U.S. it's allowed to have headlights that dynamically turn on and off the high beams depending on whether it sees a car coming. The more advanced Euro version has a spatial light modulator in the headlight that dims the light specifically in the direction of the oncoming car, while leaving the high beams on for rest of the area in front of the car.
It's the default startup setting in my Honda CR-V. Too many things in cars are being automated like this. Not being able to dial in a windshield wiper speed and only having an "Auto" option drives me crazy because it usually guesses wrong.
That seems like a terrible idea for government. “Well actually I meant”, and off went the goalpost into the atmosphere. If a law is so complex that you can’t effectively write it in a locked in medium then the concept of said law is probably flawed.
That's how American law works. The law as written has very little to do with the law as practiced. Everything comes down to how courts interpret the letter of the law as it relates to the messy reality of meatspace.
Writing the law is like writing code. You can attempt to reason through each instruction and apply all sorts of static analysis, but you can't actually be certain it will work until you try to run it in production. The courts are the debugger for legal code. Courts attempt to interpret what the letter of the law means and how it applies to the very specific scenario in front of them.
Consider a law that simply states carrying a sword in public is illegal. Without common law, this rule applies in 100% of scenarios unless explicitly stated otherwise. If a foreign dignitary comes and expects officers with ceremonial swords, they all go to jail. We interpret law because the ideal vacuum universe in which the law was written does not have unforseen circumstances. A court applies an interpretation to circumstances to come to the judgement that diplomats are allowed to have ceremonial sabers in their entourage.
Think about it some more and ask yourself how a society could function in the long term without the ability to reinterpret law to fit particular circumstances. Every law rigidly applied exactly as written forever into the future. The only option to revise a law is by passing a new one.
Spirit of the law vs. letter of the law. You can't go all-in on the letter of the law because language is imprecise and very contextual, and cannot aptly express the intent behind the law perfectly for all edge cases.
Nintendo also is responsible for keeping Dolphin off of Steam. Dolphin wanted to get on steam for improved steam deck integration and Valve reached out to Nintendo who said, essentially : Lol fuck no we will ruin your life
The courts have told Nintendo numerous times that they are in the wrong in this behavior and outlook. They have no legal means to keep Dolphin off Steam and it is a matter of judicial record that emulators are not an infringement of your IP on their own. Nintendo doesn't care and openly discusses their intent to make you suffer through lawfare. A just system would smack them down with a vexatious litigant label, but our system gives businesses infinite benefit of the doubt.
Because it’s a poorly designed regulation and there is a group of people who can’t accept that the EU over-regulates and is bad at writing any regulation remotely related to technology.
If a government has trouble complying with the “spirit” (as many people use in argument) of their own regulation then the regulation is poorly designed and not useful.
I think this is so far off-base you aren’t even close, there is an uncountable amount of indie (or even well respected established studios) working on passion projects or working on respected titles in reasonable and relaxed working conditions. You need to recognize the occasional headline you read isn’t ever the standard and you shouldn’t stereotype it.
>there is an uncountable amount of indie (or even well respected established studios) working on passion projects or working on respected titles in reasonable and relaxed working conditions.
Not these days, in this economy. It's usually not so gloom and doom but we are in very weird times. And obviously it's not just games nor tech. Games get hit "harder" because what's the first thing people knock off their budget when money is tight?
But of course, there will always been some other well off people tinkering on the side. No pressure if they never make a release.
America is the most successful country on this earth and we bankroll most of the rest of the world but somehow we’re always the bad guys.
As an American I’d be very happy if my tax dollars stopped getting spent on Europe.