Many people are saying this is symbolic and cannot be enforced. Unfortunately, that's just not true. Look at what happened to the founder of Telegram. Some jurisdiction decides you're violating their laws, all you need to do is catch a connecting flight or take a vacation on their soil or a place that will eagerly extradite, and you're a political prisoner.
What happens if one of the officers of 4Chan or Gab is on a flight to Paris and the plane is redirected to London? Well, they're going to prison. The UK is a police state.
Durov's plane wasn't redirected to France, nor were the French planning to extradite him anywhere else for all we know. He willingly landed his own private jet in Paris.
I understand what point you're trying to make, but Protasevich would have been a better example. Beware of whose airspace you fly over.
Durov is also, relevantly, a naturalized French citizen in addition to his various other passports. It's not just "some jurisdiction", it's one he opted into!
I still cannot believe the Geneva Conventions allowed this. This should have ended with John Kerry and Jen Psaki in a Swiss prison for at least 10 years, if not Barack Obama himself. We managed to convict accused war criminals with a lot less evidence in the Nuremburg trials. FOR EMPHASIS: I'm not comparing the severity of the crimes, I'm comparing the evidentiary basis for securing convictions.
"It may be dangerous to be America's enemy, but to be America's friend is fatal."
-Henry Kissinger
The Geneva Conventions are international humanitarian laws consisting of four treaties and three additional protocols that establish international legal standards for humanitarian treatment in war.
All you did was link to the main page of a wikipedia article and copy and paste the first sentence. Your response is so lazy, it doesn't even deserve a response, but I'm putting this out here for the benefit of the general public:
https://www.icrc.org/en/article/grave-breaches-defined-genev...
GC 4 Art. 147.
"Grave breaches to which the preceding Article relates shall be those involving any of the following acts, if committed against persons or property protected by the present Convention: wilful killing, torture or inhuman treatment, including biological experiments, wilfully causing great suffering or serious injury to body or health, UNLAWFUL DEPORTATION OR TRANSFER OR CONFINEMENT OF A PROTECTED PERSON, compelling a protected person to serve in the forces of a hostile Power, or wilfully depriving a protected person of the rights of fair and regular trial prescribed in the present Convention, taking of hostages and extensive destruction and appropriation of property, not justified by military necessity and carried out unlawfully and wantonly."
1. Foreign heads of state are definitely protected persons.
2. Foreign heads of state transiting to and from diplomatic meetings are engaged in a protected activity.
3. If these laws apply between enemy nations engaged in declared war, they are even more applicable to countries at peace with one another.
It turns out I'm even more right that I initially thought: this was not only a breach of the spirit of the Geneva Conventions, it was also a breach of the very letter of the law! Regardless, someone doesn't understand the purpose of the Geneva Conventions in the first place, so I'll elaborate...
Edward Snowden himself is irrelevant, it doesn't matter if Osama Bin Laden was on that plane. The fact is that the US and its allies used deception to illegally ground a diplomatic flight, detain a foreign head of state, and engage in an illegal search and seizure.
Furthermore, whether or not the countries involved were even at war is irrelevant. The purpose of the Geneva Conventions are to maintain a minimum set of international ethics that make diplomacy safe for diplomats. If a foreign head of state can be detained or imprisoned, and if his property can be searched or seized, then diplomatic negotiations for anything are now impossible.
It doesn't matter if the reasons for breaking these rules are justifiable or not, the fact is that you're not trustworthy even in a basic capacity that allows for diplomatic negotiation. You're in the same perfidious bucket as Japanese Emperor Hirohito, Saddam Hussein, or Ruhollah Khomeini (Iranian Hostage Crisis).
"Build your opponent a golden bridge to retreat across."
-Sun Tzu
P.S. The Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations explicitly forbids detaining diplomats. See articles 27 and 29:
> If these laws apply between enemy nations engaged in declared war, they are even more applicable to countries at peace with one another.
So far as I can tell, that claim is your own invention.
Also, according to your own link's link to the full text:
Article 4 - Definition of protected persons
Persons protected by the Convention are those who, at a given moment and in any manner whatsoever, find themselves, in case of a conflict or occupation, in the hands of a Party to the conflict or Occupying Power of which they are not nationals.
Nationals of a State which is not bound by the Convention are not protected by it. Nationals of a neutral State who find themselves in the territory of a belligerent State, and nationals of a co-belligerent State, shall not be regarded as protected persons while the State of which they are nationals has normal diplomatic representation in the State in whose hands they are.
The provisions of Part II are, however, wider in application, as defined in Article 13 .
Persons protected by the Geneva Convention for the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded and Sick in Armed Forces in the Field of August 12, 1949, or by the Geneva Convention for the Amelioration of the Condition of Wounded, Sick and Shipwrecked Members of Armed Forces at Sea of August 12, 1949, or by the Geneva Convention relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War of August 12, 1949, shall not be considered as protected persons within the meaning of the present Convention.
Even if it was, Morales was not detained by another state, nor did his plane land under what is recognised as "coercion": The aircraft was denied overflight by several European states after rumours that Snowden was aboard, so it diverted to Austria, where it landed voluntarily for refuelling. Austria’s authorities requested (but, in a legal sense, did not compel) inspection; Morales, in a legal sense, consented.
Also, "search and seizure"? Nothing was seized, IIRC?
> The purpose of the Geneva Conventions are to maintain a minimum set of international ethics that make diplomacy safe for diplomats.
Nope, different laws for that. As you say elsewhere, Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations. Which, importantly, is a different thing than the Geneva Conventions. I mean, you can tell by how most of the words in the name are different…
> YOU LOSE! YOU GET NOTHING! GOOD DAY, SIR!
I see you're new here. Such energy doesn't go down well on this site.
Morales' plane wasn't actually forced to land anywhere nor did anyone try to arrest anyone onboard.
His plane was denied access to airspace. At worst, he would have had to turn around and reroute. They only decided to land right away because of a faulty fuel indicator.
Enforcing bad legislation that was enacted through the democratic process doesn’t make a country a police state. It’s just the rule of law. That has always included the enforcement of bad laws as well as good ones.
There's no such thing. There are many different processes that some people consider democratic and others don't. But "democratic" has no other meaning than rule by the governed. It is not a description of a specific political process. Especially one that bans leading opposition candidates, which is clearly as undemocratic as anything that can occur in government. If a population wants to vote in somebody who is currently in prison for crimes they are obviously guilty of, preventing them from doing it is a direct repudiation of democracy.
Even killing opposition candidates is marginally more democratic, because at least that only lasts for an instant. Saying that people cannot vote for the government of their choice is a restriction on the governed, not a restriction on people who want to govern.
The UK does not ‘ban’ leading opposition candidates. The largest opposition party in Parliament is the Conservatives; Kemi Badenoch is not banned. The opposition party leading in the polls is Reform; Nigel Farage is not banned.
You don’t refer to any specific cases so I can’t offer any specific response, but the key phrase is
> under ___ laws.
A police state is one where the police arrest whoever the government directs them to arrest (rather than enforcing the law). Keir Starmer is not phoning up Police chiefs to get people disappeared.
Courts ruling on matters of legal interpretation is how things are supposed to work. This is like saying “the US Constitution is whatever the kangaroo Supreme Court says that it is.”
I mean there isn't a UK court. There's the supreme court, but one can still appeal to the Hague to get you out of a jam. But yeah, you keep thinking that. Its not like with have a shadow docket going on, undermining the constitution.
> It's a total police state.
I can still, on record call Starmer "a massive fucking prick".
I can do that on TV.
I will not get arrested, I will not have an ICE raid called on me, I won't get death threats.
I won't lose my job[1]
So no, its not a police state, because the judiciary is still working, more or less
> The UK locks up political dissidents under draconian 'safety' laws.
We used to just out and out shoot them.
We used to demand that they have their voices literally overdubbed by an actor.
We used to round people up and jail them for being too irish.
We used to be in a civil war, up until the 2000s.
You're just having a cyberpunk wet dream. Don't get me wrong, the OSA is an abomination. but you are being a hyperbolic child, especially as actual authoritarianism is happening in the USA, without anything as a peep from the same blowhards talking about the OSA.
It's a nanny state with the police arresting and jailing people for tweets. It's a police state, but "we" like to identify police states with Russians, Chinese, and Iranians, or whoever the state's enemy is at the moment.
When police show up to your door and ask you to apologize to people for causing distress, and to consider not speaking from now on, you live in a police state. When you have banned political parties and organizations that trigger the mass arrests of peaceful protestors, you live in a police state. People who are comfortable with what is being suppressed never think of their country as a police state. At least until something happens to them or someone they care about, when they suddenly become "activists."
sigh You've not lived in a police state, or more accurately, you've been online too much to actually get context.
In the UK threatening to kill someone has been illegal since at least ~1880 something. Going online an publicly calling for the death of one or more person (which in the eyes of the law is pretty close to sending a good old paper death threat) is not only widely considered a dick move, its illegal.
Now, How do you enforce that? the police investigate, and if its deemed a credible threat, you are visited by the plod. Who most likley go "look mate, don't be a dick".
If you are really being a dick, you might be cautioned (taken to the police station and told "you're being a shit")
The next stage up is appearing in court.
And then you have to be convicted by a jury of your peers, and the burden of evidence is really quite high. ("oh but that mum, she was innocent." I advise you to read all that she wrote, you know the extra bits that the sun can't print)
Its not like you're bundled into the back of a van by masked goons who refuse to identify themselves. Taken to a mass detention centre and not seen for weeks, and then yeeted to an illegal jail.
But why are the police investigating social media?
Now thats a good question. And the answer is: Musk doesn't moderate. Stuff that gets you a visit from the plod is generally against the community standards of social media, even X.
Now to your point here: "When police show up to your door and ask you to apologize to people for causing distress"
I've had a visit from the police, why? because I was young and being an antisocial shit. The police were not actually there to arrest me, and I don't think they could actually if they wanted to. The point was, they were there to make the town liveable for all it's citizens. I was "fucking around", and the police were gently telling me that I'd really not like to "find out".
"OH BUT PERSONAL FREEDOM". Now, the thing is, I was perfectly free to carry on my bad ways. The problem was, those ways, had they descended further, would have resulted in jail time. The choice was mine.
I don't want to live in a country where its acceptable to bully whomever I like, in the guise of personal freedom. Sure, speak your mind, but don't be a dick about it.
Let's not act like political speech has not been used to arrest people in the UK. To claim otherwise is a lie, or a level of ignorance only afforded to small children.
> To claim otherwise is a lie, or a level of ignorance only afforded to small children.
And I have not claimed otherwise. during the troubles stuff went south very quickly. What you are doing are conflating political persecution with the censoring of 4chan, an organisation who's adherence to law is flexible at best.
That UK police do not carry firearms really has nothing to do with whether the UK is heading in the direction of being a police state. Firearms are no more necessary for oppression than the private possession of them is sufficient to fight against it.
> and the cops themselves don't want to change that.
I think that you will find that there is a minority of UK police who would welcome being armed with deadly weapons.
Here's an article from 2017:
"A national survey carried out by the Police Federation of England and Wales found more than a third of officers supported the idea of routinely being armed, compared to 23 per cent when the last survey was carried out in 2006.
Another 55 per cent said they would be prepared to carry a gun if asked to – up more than 10 per cent."
I'll be the first to tell you, police in the USA are absolute tyrants. You can be killed for mouthing off to the police here, and likely nothing will happen to them.
Well, at some point you won't have a choice. The government is going to ban ICE vehicles, tax the existing ones, and all the electrics will be everything by wire.
I for one cannot wait for my nuclear powered steering mechanism. The reactor is of course used to generate steam pressure to actuate the steering arms, the car is powered by normal batteries.
Not steer-by-"wire" exactly but in the 1970s and 1980s Citroën had cars with "DIRAVI" steering. In normal operation there was no direct mechanical link between the steering wheel and road wheels. The whole thing was a big hydraulic servo, with "resistance" applied to the steering wheel using a heart-shaped cam, a big spring, and a small hydraulic piston that had progressively more pressure behind it based on road speed.
If you let the steering wheel go it would spring back to the middle even with the car at a standstill because of the resistance cam.
If it lost hydraulic pressure while you were driving there was still generally enough in the system to allow you to pull over safely, and you could drive for much longer distances if you could cope with about a quarter of a turn of "play" in the steering wheel. With no pressure at all, turning the steering wheel would move the shuttle valve in the steering controller until it bottomed out and then the linkage would just turn the pinion on the steering rack, which was normally used for servo feedback. Uncomfortable, but acceptable for "get off the road" situations.
The hydraulic system also worked the self-levelling suspension, the fully-powered braking system (similar to the WABCO systems on a lot of more modern vehicles), and on some manual gearbox models the clutch.
Not really "drive by wire", because it's not electronic, but it really is a system where the steering rack could be fully decoupled from the steering wheel.
You are being downvoted and the replies so far aren't helping you understand why your statement is very wrong.
"Steer by wire" means there is nothing but copper signal wires between your steering wheel and the front wheels. Your steering wheel is essentially a video game controller.
This has nothing to do with the car's mode of propulsion though, and both EVs and ICE cars can have steer by wire controls. So far, it's only the cybertruck that has this paradigm, all other EV's all have normal power steering.
For normal power steering systems there are two types: hydraulic and electric. Both types have a solid steel shaft between your steering wheel and the front wheels. You can remove the engine/motor completely, and you'll still be able to steer the car. The hydraulic or electric motor merely helps you turn the wheel, nothing more. Hydraulic is being phased out for electric in both EVs and ICE vehicles.
Steer shafts are being phased out. Electronic power steering has nothing to do with what I'm talking about. Manufacturers want fully electric, fully autonomous cars. If the computer is driving the car 99% of the time, they'll argue that having a steering shaft is totally unnecessary.
For whatever reason, manufacturers aren't trying to make fully autonomous ICE vehicles.
Driving forces could be interpreted as wrong, but they’re probably correct about orders and outcome:
Step 1 is policy/goal for California [1].
Step 2 decades old policy in Europe (and recently canceled in Canada?), as vehicle carbon tax. There’s also EV tax credits of course, which are practically identical, from the purchasing perspective - “If I buy ice, I pay this much more in taxes”.
NVIDIA's forward P/E ratio is approximately 29.94, indicating the price investors are willing to pay for each dollar of estimated future earnings. This ratio is lower than its trailing P/E of around ~53. How are they overvalued? They're making more money than ever in a rapidly growing new industry that is completely changing the landscape of the entire world.
“At 10 times revenues, to give you a 10-year payback, I have to pay you 100% of revenues for 10 straight years in dividends. That assumes I can get that by my shareholders. That assumes I have zero cost of goods sold, which is very hard for a computer company. That assumes zero expenses, which is really hard with 39,000 employees. That assumes I pay no taxes which is very hard. And that assumes you pay no taxes on your dividends which is kind of illegal. And that assumes with zero R&D for the next 10 years, I can maintain the current revenue run rate. Now, having done that, would any of you like to buy my stock at $64? Do you realize how ridiculous those basic assumptions are? You don’t need any transparency. You don’t need any footnotes. What were you thinking?”
Written some time ago by the CFO of a company that was making more money than ever in a rapidly growing new industry that was completely changing the landscape of the entire world. (Not investment advice - it could be different this time.)
> How are *they* overvalued?
By the way, you forgot to mention that TESLA's forward P/E ratio is approximately 203.39, indicating the price investors are willing to pay for each dollar of estimated future earnings. This ratio is lower than its trailing P/E of around ~259.
This morning [Merrill Lynch computer hardware analyst and long-term Sun Micro bull Steve Milunovich] increased his price target to $140 a share, or 42 times his fiscal 2000 earnings estimate of $3.30 a share on sales of $13.9 billion. For fiscal 1999, he expects the company to have earnings of $2.79 a share and sales of $11.62 billion. "Sun is increasingly at the heart of Internet computing. Its stubbornness in developing its own technology is paying off," says Milunovich.
What is the track record of these analysts? I don't know of any analysts doing these forecasts which have hold against reality at all in the span of 10 years, if anyone knows of one analyst whose forecasts have held 50% of the time they predicted something in the span of 10 years I'd love to see the data :)
They have always been profitable as a company, and even after all the hype, I would still value them as a "Cash printing machine". Which is what you want when you buy an asset such as a stock.
With the US trying to hyperinflate their debt away, the only safe havens have proven to be cash generating tech businesses and its going to be that way for the forseeable future. Valuations are only going to get crazier from here.
Again, since revenue is the denominator in sales ratio, you are conflating what the OP said...
The difference here and between the .com bubble is these companies have high earnings. They are literally walking cash cows and are printing money... AKA the earnings, with revenue not being important here because that's what CAUSED the .com crash. (High revenues, but absolutely burning money).
NVIDIA is in the business of selling shovels to the gold miners in this scenario, not the gold miners themselves.
One exception i will grant you, is they started giving away some of their tools on equity (investments in openAI, stargate, etc. are very circular), and then will turn around and sell that back to them at their prefered COGS+Profit.
> The difference here and between the .com bubble is these companies have high earnings. They are literally walking cash cows and are printing money...
The difference between you and me is that I know that Sun Microsystems was not burning money and had a price to earnings ratio similar to Nvidia now.
What are “these companies” by the way? Do you mean Tesla?
Sun microsystems was mainly selling to startups, who could go bankrupt. Nvidia is selling to Oracle, Microsoft, Apple, Tesla, Xai and to some extent Google. Excluding potential bubbles here which are coreweave, OpenAI, Antrhopic, etc.
And by "these companies" I mean all the companies i just listed excluding the potential bubbles.
They are all making heaps of cash, buying from a company who is also making heaps of cash on each sale. You also have to price in the geopolitical influence of controling such a important piece of tech.
> Sun microsystems was mainly selling to startups, who could go bankrupt. Nvidia is selling to Oracle, Microsoft, Apple, Tesla, Xai and to some extent Google.
Excuse my ignorance, but who are Oracle, Microsoft, Apple, Tesla, Xai, Meta, and Google getting their revenue from?
Oracle, Microsoft: Fortune 500, governments and big cos everywhere in the west.
Apple: their loyal fanbase everywhere.
Google, Meta: advertisers everywhere.
Tesla, Xai: not sure, but definitely not just startups.
Implying these will go under and therefore NVIDIA is in trouble is a stretch. Far more likely they wean off its hw and use inhouse, or OpenAI and Anthropic go under, or AMD catches up, or there is WW3.
Ok, if Tesla is literally a walking cash cow so are Ford or GM to name just a couple of companies in the same sector. (Both together are valued at less than one tenth of Tesla and print five times as much cash.)
I agree that it's better that your customers do not go out of business. One should not forget though that they may have other reasons to buy less of the thing you sell or they may prefer to get it from someone else.
The ability for the masses to create any video just by typing, among the other features, is not novel technology? Or is it just the lack of emotional response?
This is at best a Boeing talking-point. We don't have any data that states it is safe to operate the MAX without MCAS. It's quite possible that probable scenarios would result in stall faster than a human can react.
Afaik all analysis of the max’s design have come to the conclusion that its natural behaviour was nothing special or dangerous. It’s just that in some edge cases the nose would lift faster than on an NG, and that was not acceptable if it was sold as a 737 with no retraining.
One would think this question would have been answered directly in the FAA report, but it got zero mentions. We got zero data on how often MCAS made adjustments and how often in the report.
Basically, we only have Boeing's word for it, which is worthless. They self-certified everything, and we see how that went.
During that era, SPARC servers were the absolute premium units inside the datacenter. That aligned better with Oracle selling servers than Google, who doesn't sell servers, IMO.
There's a lot of hate for Meta in here. They are actually innovating unique new products here. I don't know if they will be commercially successful, but they at least look interesting.
What happens if one of the officers of 4Chan or Gab is on a flight to Paris and the plane is redirected to London? Well, they're going to prison. The UK is a police state.