They probably had a few stock owners in mind, which came ahead and keep coming ahead with strategically planned transactions placed right before another US major move - all by pure coincidence of course.
I must notice that every time, but really every time, EU moves a pinky finger against tech industry, a sizeable chunk of comments here will be like the one above. I wonder, is it about a general sentiment against EU? Or a general sentiment against restricting technology? Or a general sentiment against humans? Or what?
I think it's easier and safer to complain about everything than to actually have a nuanced and informed stance.
Look at age verification: it's very easy and very safe to say "nobody sane would think that it is a good idea to force people to show their ID to every website they want to access, it will obviously leak the IDs, that is very bad!". While it is not wrong, it is manipulative: that is not the only way to implement age verification. In fact, there is technology that exists that would allow age verification in a privacy-preserving manner: some service that already have access to your ID can give you a token that proves your age, and you can then use this token to access a website. The service cannot know where you use the token, the website cannot know your ID, and they cannot collude.
So the constructive debate around age verification is this: assuming we implement it properly (i.e. in a privacy-preserving manner), is that something that we want or not? Does it solve a problem, or at least does it help?
But we cannot ever elevate the debate to that level, because nobody can't be arsed to get informed about it.
> The sentiment that having to present our ID to use tiktok gives us the heebie-jeebies, and for good reason.
So push for privacy-preserving age verification, such that you don't need to leak your ID to anyone but TikTok can still prevent kids from accessing it?
That's my problem with the debate: people like you seem very proud to be uninformed. It exists as much as end-to-end encryption exists. It's cryptography, it's not up to debate.
But people who have no clue are very vocal about their belief that it does not exist.
Boiling kid's (and adult's) brains probably makes them a decent chunk of money, either directly via salary or indirectly via stocks. Ensuring kids remain healthy makes no money. An unfortunately large slice of the tech sector doesn't give the tiniest shit about the health of our broader society or any group in it if it means their lines stop going up, or even go up slightly less fast.
Imo, both. The more right wing people started to have aggressively anti-EU stance once Vance openly stood on the side of Orban and against EU and democracies in general.
And some people see tech companies as worship worthy and trying to restrict them is kind of a blasphemy.
The Vance thing is far too recent and inconsequential across europe?
The sentiment precedes all that and mostly stems from the EU being in some ways originally lib left dominated and still being seen as facilitating non-eu migration
Regular right wing people (aka not one of the many parties potentially receiving donations) don't tend to love giant webtech companies. Especially since they feel like they're often used as a tool against them and aren't a local thing that draws nationalists either.
A focus on privacy also isn't a very left-right defined thing tho i have noticed that the most far reaching expressions of it come a bit more from the further ends of that spectrum. (you'll see some very left leaning people at fosdems privacy focused/related stands for example)
In said US of America, when the government wants to know something about you, they will get everything they want from the companies - it's even written clearly in the US laws. So I'm not sure why (or where) you draw that line...
1. if they have to subpoena each site each time they need user data, it reduces mass surveillance risk. I'm okay with cops getting a warrant to access someone's gmail. I'm not okay requiring everyone to use email.gov.
2. I use a VPN and pseudonyms. they could unmask me if they cared to, but it'd be annoying. it'd be a lot more annoying if they wanted to unmask every VPN user all the time.
I am amused when people fret about not using Chrome. I get it but… I have literally NEVER used Chrome. Perhaps I just don’t know what I am missing but the web seems to work just fine for me without it?
It's like eating a burger - they're basically all the same, but there are variations. And a burger isn't anything amazing (even if you find a pretentious one, it's still a burger), but it's still nice to go out and get one now and then.
So maybe I want to watch some capeshit today, but I don't want it to be exactly the same as the ones I've watched before. Many people feel this way, and the market provides.
Cinemas around here have started showing old films and I have rediscovered the joy of going to the movies, whether it's Some Like It Hot or Suicide Club.
same! in the last couple of years i've seen these movies in a cinema: The Big Lebowski, Fargo, La Heine, Apocalypse Now, HEAT. and i already bought tickets for Run Lola Run, Clerks and Fear And Loathing In Las Vegas.
it's especially cool as someone who's young and wasn't even born when some of these movies initially came to cinemas.
at the same time it's unbelievably sad that in recent years about 70% of the movies i saw at a cinema were multiple decades old.
I love Lola rennt so much. Really a one-of-a-kind movie.
When you grow up it's not only nostalgia, but the feeling that most of the ideas are really not new. I remember watching 'You Were Never Really Here', that had a huge hype behind it, and thinking "I have seen this same exact movie a hundred of times".
> I love Lola rennt so much. Really a one-of-a-kind movie.
+1, yes! watched it for the first time a couple of years ago after hearing about it and deciding to ethically download it, since then i've watched it a couple of times and at the start of this year even bought a Blu-Ray Player and a 4k Ultra HD copy* just because I wanted a physical copy to put on a shelf and watch it in an optimal quality. and as mentioned i'll go watch it in a cinema in a couple of months.
i also created a letterboxd account this year to log every movie i've ever seen. what's weird is that i've logged over 400 movies, but if i look at a graph of the years they were realeased in it's almost a perfect bell curve with the top being between 2006 - 2010.
*in these last couple months i started buying used blu-rays and DVDs and now got about 70 movies. guess this is my form of nostalgia. others got vynils, i got movies. physical media just feels different than downloaded movies. cover art, bonus material, DVD menues with soundtracks. love it...
> at the same time it's unbelievably sad that in recent years about 70% of the movies i saw at a cinema were multiple decades old.
There are literally thousands of good movies released between ~1890 and last year.
It’s improbable more than a hundred or so will come out this year that’re worth your time, and they’ll be harder to sort from the junk this close to release.
If anything, it’s amazing new movies have as large an audience as they do.
MST3K is definitive proof that "not all the old movies were good" - there were some stinkers, and they only picked out the ones that were "so bad they're good" - there's much worse.
Most movies are decently budgeted and so at least meet some minimum bar for quality - so cult classics can arise time and time again. There are movies in theaters right now that will be the cult classics of the 2050s.
True but even then there are other criteria too: as I plan to sell the house in 10 years, the extra cost for drilling simply didn't make economical sense (to me). So the "regular" pump had to do, and does it fine.
Then watch it f'up half your codebase because it thinks it's slightly related to your examples. The alternative, giving it 10 examples, is actually more work.
reply