> Also Without iOS or Android play store, you're back using Nokia or Chinese counterpart.

Yes, and? It's not like Chinese OSes (forks of Android or whatever) are noteworthy for being bad.

More generally, even just having the option to switch is important for purchasers in general, so that the vendors know they don't have a captive audience and don't try all the usual stuff that makes monopolies bad.

Clearly you mean something very different by the word "stable" than any use I have ever encountered before. Also, one word to offend Trump or Musk seems to lead to more problems right it now — in normal times, saying that "China's at least willing to agree to disagree about human rights" would be faint praise indeed, but compare that to Trump and Musk where saying "cis" on Twitter is considered "hate speech", where being a journalist and asking Trump about something he himself said on camera the week before will have him rant at you, where interviewing someone who doesn't like him will lead to him calling for your broadcast licence to be revoked, where judges who listen to cases about America's friend Israel get sanctioned.

More importantly to this topic however, your responses seem to be shifting the goal posts somewhat.

You replied to a comment which I agreed in my opening words was overstating case, that it was under-estimating the difficulty and time needed to switch.

What I'm saying is that Europe can, in fact, switch — just slower than bgwalter said.

I'm not saying it should ("should" depends on things I don't know), I'm saying it *can*. I'm saying the option is open.

Trump or anyone else can absolutely go on a rant on Twitter as a First Amendment right. It doesn't matter if you or anyone doesn't like what he has to say. But his rants are not the Law and any law that is passed in US can be challenged in the Supreme Court. If you believe that calling someone “cis” on Twitter is not hate speech and should be considered free speech, then sue Twitter, you have that choice and freedom in the US.

The situation in China is completely different. Laws there are effectively set in stone, whether you like them or not, and regardless of whether they violate your rights. Good luck challenging them.

Finally, Europe can do many things, it can switch to Chinese tech, keep using whatever they have or it can ditch modern technology altogether and go back to 1980s technology (if we're talking about what they can do). Given the current rate of deindustrialization in Europe’s largest economy, they may soon be using 1980s technology anyway.

What do you really think about this case in particular? I'm pretty curious where this comes from.

Just do be clear, I use genAI all the time for finding info and answering questions, so my browsing habits changed as well. I'm the kind of person who this case would indirectly be about. But don't you think that it's valuable to look at how do we compensate people who create content when their content is being used by genAI.

Many people seem to have the feeling of 'oh it's too late and those websites were garbage anyway (whatever that means), who cares'. Don't you think that's a bit of a silly way to go about this?

But why should we compensate them simply because their content is being consumed by AI? For me, any kind of compensation MUST take relevance into account, otherwise we'll reward quantity and not quality, thus quality won't be preserved.

Maybe the answer is to actually NOT do any compensation like that, instead focusing solely on attribution so that it's in people's interest to reward select creators manually to keep the content valuable.

Newspapers have been doing this for at least a century, while news radio and news broadcasts have done it since their inception.

In the same sense one could argue that social media like Facebook or WhatsApp should be banned among older population because that's one of the major ways mis/fake information being spread among elderly people and now with AI videos they actually believe those fake stories to be 100% true as well. I think that's more risk to modern day democracy and well being of the society in general.

It's complicated. I can decide how to raise my child when he's inside the house. But if when he goes into the world he's sorrounded by people addicted to their phones, what do you think it's going to happen?

A) Forbidding your children something does not equate to helicopter parenting. You're attacking someone else's position.

B) Forbidding your children something DOES WORK as long as that thing is not easily accessible. That's why we make certain things illegal to sell to children, so that their rate of usage is lower than otherwise.

I don't see this as being any different, and as a parent, I'd support a ban like that.

This is just the adults in the room drawing the line.

Stores don't require you to present an ID to enter them. They don't record that ID, add it to a pile of other data they've collected about you, and sell that information. In short, the privacy concerns are vastly different.

Furthermore, nicotine products are much more easily defined than social media, as another commenter points out.

Good luck.

This AI law is a clear example of that. Pencil pushers creating more obstacles for the sake of creating more obstacles rather than actually taking a pragmatic approach.

1. Lack of quality healthcare –> I have statutory health insurance and pay a substantial amount for it, yet it often takes weeks to get a doctor’s appointment. I can’t imagine dealing with that level of delay and bureaucracy when a child might need immediate medical attention.

2. Housing crisis –> Finding decent housing in Berlin (or any major German city) is incredibly difficult. Even a small room in a shared apartment costs around €600–700 per month if you’re lucky enough to find one. Securing a reasonably priced apartment suitable for a family could take years.

3. Rising cost of living –> Back in 2018, €50 could cover quite a lot; today it barely pays for a single grocery trip covering just a few days. Adding a child to the equation would make it feel like living paycheck to paycheck.

Many of my friends are also postponing having kids or have decided against it entirely due to financial concerns. In addition, quite a few of my female friends don’t want to have children because of the physical toll pregnancy would take and the loss of freedom it would mean, especially when compared to their male partners. It’s simply not something they’re willing to accept.

> To ensure robots behave safely, Gemini Robotics uses a multi-layered approach. "With the full Gemini Robotics, you are connecting to a model that is reasoning about what is safe to do, period," says Parada. "And then you have it talk to a VLA that actually produces options, and then that VLA calls a low-level controller, which typically has safety critical components, like how much force you can move or how fast you can move this arm."

For example, what if you need to train the model to keep unauthorized people from shutting it off?

I'm from a small country. Almost whatever business you do, you usually start thinking export really fast. One thing to say about EU is what they say about Africa. It's not one, there are different places in there. If you've been in one, then that might not apply somewhere else.

I don't think EU countries have that many domestic businesses anymore. Companies operate in multiple countries and have supply chains crossing borders. People can freely just go and work wherever they want just like that. EU has removed so much friction and middlemen.

Maybe German and French people could learn English a bit better and it would be smoother for business. And taxation of work could be harmonized and simplified so it'd be easier to buy labor (and not just products or services) from anywhere. That's a hard problem though because of the different societies and services and thus different taxation.

What would you improve?

The tax burden is absolutely not "massive", either in relative or absolute terms. Money going to underdeveloped parts of the EU is by design. Helping them helps everyone. It creates a huge internal market and companies and people benefit, even from net contributing countries. There sure are issues to solve, but in pure monetary terms, the EU is a no brainer, just look at the UK.

Both France and Germany are above EU average GDP PPP, how is this equivalent to a dumpster?

> If the EU is a no brainer, we should be swimming in cash, shouldn't we?

How did you reach that conclusion?

I benefit when I can use a Latvian bank that does not take an arm and a leg for basic services, and when I can get decent and cheap goods from all over Europe. I benefit when I can go and work in another country with different opportunities. People who complain about the EU and inflation have no clue how it was before the single market.

> If the EU is a no brainer, we should be swimming in cash, shouldn't we?

Well, firstly by most standards we are. The problem is inequality and the way wealth is distributed, not the lack of it.

> Even the most ardent supporters of the EU have finally admitted the truth (such as Mario Draghi), the EU is falling behind on many fronts including but not limited to AI, EVs, economic output, industrial output, defense spending and so on...

This is true, but none of this is the EU’s fault. It does not control the industrial policies of the member-states. And how would any of these member-states fare in an ideal timeline where the EU does not exist? Would having 27 different currencies, 27 different tariffs systems, 27 completely different tax structures with controls at each border help with developing any of this?

> That's a bit disingenuous. There are many countries in Asia or elsewhere that are doing just fine without being part of a union such as the EU.

I never said it would not be fine outside the EU, I am just saying that it would be measurably worse. That other countries in other circumstances do better or worse is neither here nor there. The UK provides data on a single country being inside and outside in a short time span. All the complications it is going through is something it did not have to do when it was in the EU, and any other country would have to deal with the same issues.

> What about Germany currently? What about Greece after 2008? What about France which had a 10%++ unemployment rate for the majority of the 2010s?

You are cherry picking. All these except (in part) Greece are the consequences of national politics. You cannot say that the EU is to blame for every single bad outcome in the last 30 years while saying nothing about the successes. It’s just dishonest.

> The UK is not doing well at the moment, that is a given, but let's not pretend that the countries in the EU are doing any better either.

The UK is doing spectacularly badly. I sincerely hope that it’s getting better but let’s not fool ourselves: I cannot name a French prime minister or president that was as bad as May, Johnson, Truss, or Sunak (I could name a couple of Camerons though, so it’s certainly not all good). Good luck to Starmer and I hope everyone will get better, but in the meantime it was the opposite of smooth and painless, and the UK is still not where it would have been.

> At least the UK has a functioning government whereas France is in a deadlock and will soon go through it's 4th prime minister/government of the year.

None of these governments were as inept as Truss was and the reason why there is some instability currently is that the parliament is more representative of the people. I’ll take that any day instead of a party having an absolute majority with 37% of the vote.

So first off, there are many countries where moving is not just a walk in the park within the EU. There are some countries where you can just show up with your bags but it's definitely not all of them.

Then about the cheap goods/services part, how does it benefit someone from France when a company from eastern Europe can undercut them and send a team to do job at a 30% discount compared to the normal price?

You see the good side of the single market without acknowledging that it has also been used to create unfair competition between the different countries due to the difference in social contributions and lower wages.

That is exactly what has happened with globalization and while there are some clear winners, we can say that a part of the middle class was sacrificed in order to reduce the costs of production of goods and services.

The same is happening now in Europe.

> Well, firstly by most standards we are. The problem is inequality and the way wealth is distributed, not the lack of it.

You cannot be serious. Many countries such as Greece, Italia, France, and now Germany are all in bad shapes. If the situation was good, we wouldn't be having this conversation.

The GDP of Greece is still 30% lower than what it was in 2008? How's that for doing well?

Also what does wealth inequality have to do with the under investment that the EU has done for the last 30 years? Has wealth inequality stifled productivity or stopped the EU from developing it's own Cloud or stopped the EU from investing the EVs?

> This is true, but none of this is the EU’s fault. It does not control the industrial policies of the member-states. And how would any of these member-states fare in an ideal timeline where the EU does not exist? Would having 27 different currencies, 27 different tariffs systems, 27 completely different tax structures with controls at each border help with developing any of this?

A currency is a tool that is linked to industrial outputs and therefore can affect the economy of a country.

When the Euro was introduced it forced Germany into a devaluation of it's currency since the euro was weaker than the Mark. That in turn made Germany into the power house of Europe whereas in France, it made goods more expensive and increased the labor costs which means that most of the industrial capacity of France left and went overseas and unemployment started rising.

The euro's problem is that it is not adapted to the countries with weaker economies who could do a devaluation if they did not have it in order to boost their exports.

Secondly, you mention 27 different tax structures which is exactly what Marco Draghi is highlighting in his report. If he is talking about it, that surely means that these problems still exist.

For the last 30 years, the EU has been sold to the people of Europe as the Messiah.

It will produce economic growth they said, it will make things better for everyone they said and so on and so forth. From my little corner of the world, we can see that these promises have not been fulfilled and far from it.

If the EU was meant to protect us, it has failed. The EU can't even help Ukraine properly. What kind of deterrent is that?

If it was meant to create economic growth, look at what is happening now, sandwiched in a trade war between the US and China with no way to respond to either one of them as we depend on China for our stuff and we depend on the US for all our tech.

America innovates, Europe regulates and China copies.

> You are cherry picking. All these except (in part) Greece are the consequences of national politics. You cannot say that the EU is to blame for every single bad outcome in the last 30 years while saying nothing about the successes. It’s just dishonest.

Ok,let me get this straight, you are saying that all the problems that these countries are having is not because of the EU and also saying that if only the UK had stayed it would have not any of these problems (low growth, low productivity and so on...).

Yet, the countries within the EU are having many problem, so how is being in the EU supposed to help with these problems?

You can't just absolve the EU from all it's failures while only claiming the successes.

I bet you that if a country is doing well within the EU, you would probably tell me that it is because of the EU. When it's doing badly, it's not the EU's fault.

Heads you win, tails I lose, right?

> The UK is doing spectacularly badly. I sincerely hope that it’s getting better but let’s not fool ourselves: I cannot name a French prime minister or president that was as bad as May, Johnson, Truss, or Sunak (I could name a couple of Camerons though, so it’s certainly not all good). Good luck to Starmer and I hope everyone will get better, but in the meantime it was the opposite of smooth and painless, and the UK is still not where it would have been.

Macron has added 1000 billion euros of debt in 7 years and his government had a shortfall of 60B euros this year. Instead of being honest he instructed his finance minister to hide the truth. Once fired, his minister decided to leave France in a hurry and moved to Switzerland in order to avoid having to answer difficult questions.

Now that the truth is out, he decided to spearhead a budget to tax the middle class even more while protecting his rich friends.

If think, if you look hard enough, you will see that he is as bad as any of the ones you mentioned in your comment.

The EU is not the Eurozone, you are conflating two concepts.

> When the Euro was introduced it forced Germany into a devaluation of it's currency since the euro was weaker than the Mark. That in turn made Germany into the power house of Europe whereas in France, it made goods more expensive and increased the labor costs which means that most of the industrial capacity of France left and went overseas and unemployment started rising.

Everywhere the Euro is introduced sees a spike in prices from corporations taking advantage of it, again you are conflating the Eurozone with the EU, they are different things.

> The euro's problem is that it is not adapted to the countries with weaker economies who could do a devaluation if they did not have it in order to boost their exports.

Completely agree, the ECB's monetary policy is not ideal when there are so many different economies under it.

> Secondly, you mention 27 different tax structures which is exactly what Marco Draghi is highlighting in his report. If he is talking about it, that surely means that these problems still exist.

Yes, the problem exists, exactly because the EU is first and foremost an economic union, not a federation, allowing countries to maintain their sovereignty including set their own tax policies is the only way it can exist right now. There's no appetite to create a EU Federation in its member-states, while that doesn't exist there will be many issues with the EU.

It doesn't mean that without the EU the countries would be faring better, you are jumping into conclusions from a non-logical standpoint, conflating that the EU isn't perfect for everyone doesn't mean it's not good for everyone, separate these concepts in your head.

> For the last 30 years, the EU has been sold to the people of Europe as the Messiah.

No, the EU has been sold as a bloc that makes Europe stronger than if it didn't exist, I'd invite you to describe exactly how you think its member-states could be faring better by themselves outside of the EU agreements. Let me know how 27 small states could be doing better on their own rather than in an unified trading bloc with common regulations to reduce friction in trading.

> It will produce economic growth they said, it will make things better for everyone they said and so on and so forth. From my little corner of the world, we can see that these promises have not been fulfilled and far from it.

It did, the problem is that we live in a world where the EU exists so you can't see how Europe would be without it. Again you are conflating the EU having issues with the non-existence of the EU being better, those are very different things...

> If the EU was meant to protect us, it has failed. The EU can't even help Ukraine properly. What kind of deterrent is that?

The EU was not a defence alliance, it's slowly growing into taking defence as part of its mandate. Again, since it's not a federation there was no appetite to create a common EU defence force, each member-state kept its sovereignty in defence matters. With the war in Ukraine there is a new appetite to push the EU into those matters, it takes time to enact changes across 27 different countries with their own cultures... You are just too eager and cannot comprehend that it seems.

> If it was meant to create economic growth, look at what is happening now, sandwiched in a trade war between the US and China with no way to respond to either one of them as we depend on China for our stuff and we depend on the US for all our tech.

> America innovates, Europe regulates and China copies.

America has 350+ million consumers in its market, with no language barriers, and as varied as each state is in the USA it's really much more homogeneous than the differences between Denmark and Greece, or Poland and France, etc. You can't expect the same in the EU, which again is not a federation.

Still, Sweden as an EU member is above the USA in rankings of innovation, the EU can foster that since Sweden can trade freely with all its members and other member-states can learn from the innovative ones.

Stop trying to dismantle the EU because there are issues, the spirit of it has always been to acknowledge those failures and work together to build it stronger, you are exactly the type of person who will undermine that tenet instead of helping it.

If you don't like it, move away from it, go to the USA.

Further, this would be a nightmare to developers when it comes to supporting the software for the phone. They would definitely reach a point where introducing new features are arduous due to tight requirement of backward compatibility.

Apple's SOC's are years ahead of the competition and they support the devices longer than any other company. And Apple will exist in 10 years when this company likely won't. I say that as an Android user since the HTC Evo.

I don't perceive any difference with my new one, which is a newer generation. But maybe it's because I don't spend my life glued to a mobile phone.

I'm pretty sure though, that I would have been very happy to use it for other 5 years. Heck, I'd be happy even to use my very old Galaxy S3 (but not the S2 ;)), which unfortunately broke.