matlag

No, initial reaction would probably be that “you’re wrong”, and the importer is trying to stiff him and/or is a Biden’s supporter trying to make Trump look bad or some other shit. After some time, he might come around, but the principle of a cult is no matter what fact and evidence you provide, they will dismiss them and refuse to change their minds.

Don’t worry: the law will be very carefully crafted so that it will be legal only if they do it, not us.

For the dishes: I don’t know the details of the 2 systems, but is there no way to retrofit the Starlink dishes to use Eutelsat’s constellation? I mean if we exclude the legal IP mess for reverse-engineering the electronics and software.

Summary: China is not a friend country. It’s a hostile country. Yes, we know.

But the news is… so is the USA to Canada now. A hostile country threatening to annex Canada and trying to cripple the economy as a way to achieve the goal. So either we slap 100% tariffs on US made cars, which would hurt Canadians, or we apply the same tariffs on Chinese cars, so reduce them from where they are at the moment.

Yes, but Canada had implemented 100% tariff on cars from China, following the US. That’s pre-trade war. The proposal is to lift that one.

Because that’s not about privacy, that’s about the trade war. Retaliatory tariffs on US cars increase cost of cars for Canadians, as there are almost no car assembled in Canada. Reducing or eliminating tariffs on cars from China would lower cost of new cars for Canadians while keeping the tariffs up.

For privacy and security, not a single new car on the market is decent right now. That should be regulated, but that’s no concern for any politician at the moment.

1.Provide a code that’s not the one running

2.Then commit to use the code you provided

3.Change the code back again right after the investigation stops.

With all delays you can legally add to the process, by the time, you’ve helped electing enough neo-fascists around, who all rely on you, to shut down the whole case.

I really hope the EU will ban it, but I’m afraid they will ask firmly for “some changes”, and claim victory over whatever “small change” is in reality. Their investigation took too long and the lead was replaced already. Then they will declare that “recent events and information were not taken in account” and go on for another N years of investigations.

They do. But you need to reduce the generation to make sure you don’t heat up too much the water for the ecosystem that lives in. Less water means the temperature difference before and after the plant is higher. That’s the constrain.

Prices capped have nothing to do with nuclear energy and everything to do with stupid EU price policy.

France used to have a monopoly by a state owned company on electrIcity: EDF. But everyone knows that’s terrible, and private market is the way to go. At the time, electricity in France was the cheapest across Europe, but it’s still terrible because… well that HAD to change!

In order to introduce some competition, generation, network and “distribution” (billing…) activities were separated.

Then private distributors (again: billing companies with 0 generation capabilites and 0 grid network) were allocated some quota of electricity from the nuclear electricity generated by EDF at low cost.

In addition, and that’s the European policy: electricity price on the market would be set at the cost of the most expensive generator at a given time. Example: 100% nuclear today: cost is set at cost of nuclear. 95% of electricity from nuclear, 5% from gas: 100% of the electricity that day is billed at cost of gas! 80% nuclear, 15% gas, 5% coal: 100% of the electricity billed at cost of coal!

Why? So that the priate newcomer would get huge benefits and be able to invest in electricity generation. But: there was 0 constrain in doing so, so they just rack up benefits at the expense of EDF and clients! Even better: since they get such low prices from their quota, they’re cheaper than the EDF split distributor company. So at some point, their quota was insufficient for their client’s demand. Time to invest… hahaha! No I’m kidding: time to ask for a bigger quota, of course granted by Macron and his team.

Then came Ukraine invasion. Uh oooh! Gas price exploses, even the “distributors” start to feel the pain. What to do? Well, kick out their clients! Refure to renew contracts, or ask for such a ridicuously high price to make sure they just go! EDF’s hisorical distribution company is legally obligated to take them back. And that’s where the 2nd joke kicks in: EDF gave s much quota of nuclear electricity that they no longer have enough for these clients they have to take. No worries: the “distributors” sold back the electricity quota… at market price, ie mostly gas price!

With the price of gas multiplied n times determining the cost of the whole production, it became unbearable for clients. That’s where genius Macron and Lemaire (Minister of Economy) set a “shield” (cap) on the bills. It’s no shield nor cap. It’s actually the state of France paying the difference in the bills between the actual bill and the cap they set. That’s public money!

And again, that money didn’t go to resources. It went straight to “distributors” (rather call them parasites).

For sure, the heavy maintenance work on the nuclear power plant done at the time didn’t help. They decided to do it on all plants at once (another bad call) and it lasted longer than planned.

But the price issue has nothing to do with nuclear and everything to do with stupid policies.

And now, lesson learned (not): Spain and Portugal got out of that absurd elecricity market. Germany and France (and many other countries) made a few changes and keep going. Because competition with multiple private actors in electricity is good. Can’t you see it??

I buy social medias and news outlets. Then I weaponize them to support a clueless gullible idiot candidate for POTUS.

I use my influence on him to get a position that will allow me to get grossly richer by favoring my own businesses, including crushing unions and force my employees to work to death on low wages.

When I reach 1 trillion $, I’ll have much more resources to improve the planet and living conditions of my fellow humans.

But wait! Maybe I could do even more for humankind with 2 trillions $??

Yep, that’s textbook big tech strategy: -Build up the hype -Get the product out there, make sure as many orgs and people start using it as possible. Make it free or sell at loss if necessary -Oh yes, we broke a few laws for this. If we don’t get a waiver, we’ll have to close the service for everyone, do you realize the impact?

That’s Facebook on privacy, Uber on workers rights, etc. Now N+1th: OpenAI on copyright.

In these companies, does anyone check the licenses in details to make sure using them is ok for the company?

Meta will get at least the metadata: meaning they will record who was in which call connecting from where.

For example, if one member is visiting a client, Meta may be able to infer the relation between the 2 companies.

If any of the people in the room click “report”, then the discussion is sent for review without the encryption protection

I’m pretty sure their user agreement translates to “you agree to let us do whatever the f*ck we want with the data you’re purposely disclosing to us”.

And last but not least: if Meta decides to wipe the archives, any info get lost?

There a reasons large companies ban unauthorized apps to talk about work.

XMPP is so bad it was the baseline for Whatsapp. You know: that minor platform that feels like IRC and never took off. A lot of the techno around you are old stuff that evolved, “new” techno usually comes with new unexpected issues. Then they mature, get better and… old?

That’s why you get “don’t put living animals in the microwave oven” in the instructions.

If Tesla didn’t explicitely wrote “don’t put your f***ing finger in the way on purpose after multiple attempts to close it!” he may have a chance.

He will plead a trauma from the loss of trust in his beloved car brand and the credibility damage on his Youtube channel and ask for M$.

Unfortunately, you need to add this about all of us supporting them: “buying the cheapest product over buying the fairest produced”, therefore comforting them exploiting labor to reduce the cost is what we collectively want.

So first kill Trump, then kill some of the SC judges, so that they won’t oppose you when you move to make the president bound to uphold the law.

Was he not describing his fundraising as donations so far? You donate money you don’t think you need at all. But you should be able to lend money you don’t need in the near future. I would bet some of his “loyal” supporters would start to doubt if they were asked to lend too much of what they own.

He should borrow vast amounts of money from his loyal supporters: “Empty your lifetime savings accounts, I promise I’ll pay everything back with interests!”.

Then we’ll see how much his followers really trust him when they need to put their own future on the line…

If you can afford a 1M$ painting, you can certainly afford to have it appraised once in a while.