They should not be. That there is people willing to give their data to big corporations and foreign countries by extension puts everybody at risk. It is a matter of national security and it should not be allowed, no opt in option.
Big tech wants all the chips and they get them. That is Stalinist level of absurd planning.
People is missing the point. Mega-corporations distort the market. This is not capitalism this is old aristocratic ruling by power. If all these monopolies were divided in smaller chunks and regulated to not allow them to abuse that power we will not be here.
This situation is not normal, big tech is currently above the law and above the market economy and if they fail their plan is to make us pay *AGAIN* for their bad decisions. All businesses and individuals are already paying higher prices for big tech folly, we will be left with the bill when the AI boom fails, too.
Antitrust laws exist for a reason, when judges and goverment stopped enforcing them it created the age of mega-corporations. AT&T did not had the level of control of the economy that modern tech companies have, and yet got split to make room for competition and a healthy economy.
The world knows how to fix this problem the rich pay to not allow it.
This is pretty much exactly what Lina Khan would say, I'm still mad Harris sidelined her instead of putting her front and center, drilling that message into people's tick skulls.
It is well know that big corporations take good regulations and change them to make them:
1. Easier to bypass for themselves.
2. Create extra work for incumbents.
3. Convince the public that the problems are solved so no other action is needed.
In many industries goverment and corporations work together to create regulations bypassing the social movements that asked for the industry to be regulated and their actual problems. The end result are regulations that are extremely complex to add exceptions for anything that big corporations paid to change instead of regulations that protect citizens and encourage competition.
See the Mattel lead painted toy scandal. The end result was congress passed regulations that manufacturers had to have their toys tested for lead and then made large companies like Mattel exempt from it because they were deemed large enough to handle it on their own. Even though they were the reason for the legislation because they weren't handling it on their own. Mattel sells lead painted toys and congress responds by hobbling their competitors.
There was never any move to align the USA and Europe politically, it always has just been an economic and militarist alliance.
If currently there is still a lot of support for USA companies inside the EU is because individual politicians have stakes on them or are Epstein-level implicated in corruption and scandals.
Even that to let American corporations control European business is destroying the EUs working class and it should be stopped. I still see a future of economic cooperation with the USA in the same way that can exist with India, Mercousur, etc. Collaborating and trading can benefit everyone without need to importing the USAs billionaire driven economy.
If and where possible, please help working people in the US thwart, subvert, and destroy the artificial plutocratic, hegemonic overlords that are sucking the life out of everyone on the planet.
An exoskeleton is something really cool in movies that has zero reason to be build in reality because there are way more practical approaches.
That is why we have all kind of vehicles, or programmable robot arm that do the job for themselves or if you need a human at the helm one just adds a remote controller with levers and buttons. But making a human shaped gigantic robot with a normal human inside is just impractical for any real commercial use.
> The amendment follows outrage over the Elon Musk-owned chatbot Grok's willingness to generate nude or sexualized images of people, mainly women and girls, which forced a climbdown earlier this year.
Laws are reactive. When abuses of the system happen lawmakers need to find ways to minimize the damage. This is one of the reasons that Google used to follow the "do not do evil" doctrine. It was a smart way to minimize regulation. The new big tech has thrown any aparence of morality thru the windows and that creates a strong need to regulate their actions.
Reactivity is not a virtue. If your existing laws are already not being followed, then adding more is a folly that merely possesses the illusion of effectiveness.
World powers change and shift with changes of technology, climate and needs for resources. Countries rise to power because they are in the right place at the right time, even if monarchs and nationalists will always attribute it to God preference or other self-serving reason.
> The first century of Portuguese discoveries saw a successive stripping away of layers of medieval mythology about the world and the received wisdom of ancient authority – the tales of dog-headed men and birds that could swallow elephants – by the empirical observation of geography, climate, natural history and cultures that ushered in the early modern age.
Technology brings societal change. The world has been becoming smaller with help of each new technological step. Societies can fight it, but it is unavoidable. So, I hope that we focus more on building a good world for us all using technology to improve all our lives.
> Countries rise to power because they are in the right place at the right time, even if monarchs and nationalists will always attribute it to God preference
Isn’t it literally the God’s preference of a country for this place and time, from both secular and religious points of view?
>World powers change and shift with changes of technology, climate and needs for resources. Countries rise to power because they are in the right place at the right time,
I wonder when will China take the crown. Assuming US follows on their current trajectory.
> "I'm sure I've said that I've been addicted to a Netflix show when I binged it really late one night, but I don't think it's the same thing as clinical addiction."
Tobacco defense. He is defending himself in a trial, is a very biased opinion.
> Familial links to lung cancer manifestation first appeared in the literature in the 1960s when siblings were found to have an increase in lung cancer mortality. ... The first published piece of literature attributing cigarette smoking to the growing incidence of lung cancer was in 1912 ... Tobacco companies enlisted the medical and nursing professions to promote the safety of their products in their advertising materials
Stop listening to billionaires and CEOs that profit the most from the damage that their business do to society. They lie for money, as simple as that.
They should not be. That there is people willing to give their data to big corporations and foreign countries by extension puts everybody at risk. It is a matter of national security and it should not be allowed, no opt in option.
reply