Straw man fallacy. There are plenty of people who have been very concerned that both of those categories are weakening the foundations of the US-based financial system. It is likely to contribute to the migration away from the US petrodollar and the US dollar as the world reserve currency, thereby weakening all of the benefits we have because so many people use our currency.
Arguably, though, the US has been "stealing" (in the form of sanctions and frozen assets) from other countries going back more than a few decades, at least as far as Iran in 1979, so your timeline doesn't hold up.
"Stealing" is wordplay when it comes to Russia because they are at war and the things that are "stolen" are assets being frozen to help pay restitution for the war they started. And Russia would deny the oil stolen from their ships was theirs because the entire point of the "shadow fleet" is to obfuscate ownership, mix and match the fluid products, to create plausible deniability to avoid sanctions.
I actually think the menacing messages are on point but should apply to play store apps as well. Most of the people I know are incredibly cavalier about running mystery software from unfamiliar developers on by far the most sensitive device that they own.
Nooo what you are saying communist. I also think so, but each time someone (typically the EU) does something in the direction (e.g. digital market act) the US government, companies and citizens accuse us to be communists, against progress, that we overregulate, that the "free market" regulates by itself, and similar bullshit.
Just because Google built something valuable that doesn't mean the government should take control of it. This line of reasoning also leads to the government taking over YouTube and changing the rules there due to how "important" it is.
The things mega corporations built could be even more valuable (for society) if they didn't intentionally restrict for their own and their shareholders' benefit what you can do with them.
Since they are public companies the shareholder's benefit is to society's benefit.
>"Regulating" also doesn't mean "taking shareholders' benefit
Technically true, but if the regulations are just suggestions then they won't accomplish anything. When people suggest regulation they want to control how these companies are acting, not just sending them a strongly worded letter.
> the shareholder's benefit is to society's benefit
Yes, but there can be other benefits than monetary ones. Besides, I find it rediculous to believe that wealthy people receiving more benefits automatically translates to improvements for the general society.
To add another point: The monetary value these companies create is often only possible because of their monopolistic market distortion. I don't think it can be a net benefit for society when competitors have little to no chance to offer a better product.
> When people suggest regulation they want to control how these companies are acting
That's true. In your original comment you also said "government taking over YouTube" which is why I thought we were talking about complete transfer of control à la planned economy, which is normally not the goal of regulations.
I think it's a matter of incentives. American billionaires are mostly highly financially exposed to AI, so are not really incentivised to say anything interesting about it except "it's great, you should buy it".
It is fascinating (this word doesn't quite capture sentiment, but the best I can think of right now) how any mention of the Catholic Church, on whatever specific topic — in this case, an encyclical about AI — triggers the immediate desire in some to go full ad hominem.
"billionaire", "in some Vatican sense". Would you elaborate? This just sounds like such a low and lazy attack
If I were an incompetent manager that need to oversee crumble infrastructure, I'd like to blame my problems on evil hackers from the other side of the world.
In what way does it not look real? On the contrary a significant portion of the population seems to be totally swooned by Iranian propaganda and is not aware they are a malicious actor and have been for decades conducting much worse things on foreign soil than hacks
How would Iranian propaganda even enter the British population given the sparse cultural ties, saturation of media with domestic messaging, and the British government explicitly forcing public service content onto newsfeeds[1]? My expectation would be that Iranian propaganda makes zero inroads except with migrants from the region.
> How would Iranian propaganda even enter the British population
Haven't you heard ?They run the BBC, the Sky news, the Daily Mirror and the Sun. They also elect the parliament and the prime minister and send illegal imigrants to take the work of hard working citizens. /s
It's more that a lot of people stopeed being swooned by US propaganda, and woke up to the fact that the US is a malicious actor and have been for decades, conducting much worse things on foreign soil than hacks.
I, personally, have a lot more mistrust towards the US than I have towards Iran. Mostly because Iran has very limited power to affect me negatively.
I don’t think anyone in the west are swooned by Iran. Heck, a lot of Iranians aren’t even swooned by the Iranian propaganda.
What I think you’re doing is misinterpreting the wests disgust at Trumps war with Iran as favouring Iran when in fact what we actually feel is disdain for both parties.
I just got a new bike for my son (he's going to secondary school and needs a better bike), and was surprised to see how many kids' bikes came without fenders. What's up with that? Who wants a serious bike without fenders?
Of course most bikes still come with fenders, but that's also a major limitation for this device: you've got to remove your rear fender. Maybe this device acts somewhat as a fender, but the site says you can't use it in heavy rain, exactly when you need that fender the most.
Being cynical I would say it is yet another way to upsell.
Here in Germany if you want to get a cheaper bicycle, other than flea markets, usually they make you mount the pedals yourself, doesn't have fenders, lights might also be missing, depending on the offer.
Oddly in the UK pedals are a legally required to be included with any new bike sold. Well, technically it's pedal reflectors that are required, but they obviously need pedals to mount to.
Are you looking at performance road bikes? Fenders and lights are removed for weight savings, and for pedals there are multiple clip-in systems, you are supposed to install the pedals that match your chosen system.
If, however, they are doing that for commuter bikes...
I guess that’s the reason you don’t understand why bikes are sold without these things. €400 gets you a very, very, very low-end new bike, like just one step above “unsafe to ride”.
You often don’t get pedals on new bikes because you have your favorite pedals that work for you and anything that’s included with the bike goes straight to the bin, because it’s useless trash. You don’t get fenders, because you don’t usually use those on any kind of sporty bike. They’re heavy, they don’t usually work that well, they are often hard to use in bikes with suspension with longer travel or and they can rattle or simply break and fall off if you ride hard. You don’t get lights and reflective elements, because they’re heavy plastic crap that breaks and falls off. If you often ride at night, you probably own some kind of night gear, high powered LEDs, reflective stickers or spokes…
And obviously once that is the norm for “bikes” in general, then why not save a few cents on supermarket bikes.
> €400 gets you a very, very, very low-end new bike, like just one step above “unsafe to ride”
I don’t agree. After my last bike was stolen I decided to buy the cheapest Decathlon had to offer - 240 - for getting around town and there’s nothing unsafe about it. It’s heavy and has cheap components but everything works fine for light city cycling.
You’re probably right, I’d trust a cheap Decathlon bike not to be unsafe. But they’re really exceptional in this regard, most non-Decathlon gear at cheapest-Decathlon prices is trash.
I don't need to be educated on the increasing lack of customer service for anything below 2000 euros, having got my first bicycle in 1984, upgraded to a cycling one in 1986, had plenty of others since then.
And from all places I lived in Europe, only around here this upselling seems to be a thing.
I think it’s just “cheap bikes”. Nobody wants to work on or with cheap bikes. And bikes are getting more and more expensive (quite fast). A solid bike built with brand name components is quickly approaching 2000€.
“Cheap” meaning low-end, not actually cheap for people to buy with their salaries. Bikes are, unfortunately, surprisingly expensive nowadays, and the market isn’t doing great.
I wonder how good the lock has to be, or the break cables and wire frames cutter resistant, for it to be worthy of leaving alone while shopping on the city centre.
reply