DJI ban passes the House and moves on to the Senate • Hacker News Board

Re: DJI ban passes the House and moves on to the Senate

#271

Post by mrtksn » Mon, Jun 17, 2024, 5:59 PM UTC

simplyluke wrote: post #256

mrtksn wrote: post #233

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Define success. If it's high stock market cap calculated by multiplying the number of shares with the last trade price Europe doesn't have many of those.

I’d flip the question and ask you by what metrics Europes tech sector is performing comparatively well. Employment? Average salary? ARR? I struggle to think of a metric that’s a positive outlier.

Longevity, happiness, health, leisure, life satisfaction. Companies are there to make these possible, not to maximise the stock trading price. Some achieve that by making EUV lithography machines, others do chemicals or pharmaceuticals.

Are you aware that you can use the developer tools in your browser to set the price of the stock or your bank account balance to anything you like? You don't have to crumble your infrastructure, run from the mentally ill homeless people or bankrupt sick people to see those numbers.

If you insist on extra steps, you can sell a stock to your friend at ridiculous price and say that that this company is now bigger than the worlds' economy combined.

Re: DJI ban passes the House and moves on to the Senate

#272

Post by rcpt » Mon, Jun 17, 2024, 5:59 PM UTC

ganeshkrishnan wrote: post #57

rcpt wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When I try to download DJI fly app from the Play Store it always crashes.

which drone do you have? there is a DJI fly app version that you have to sideload. The current ones on playstore are just fine

Mini 2

Re: DJI ban passes the House and moves on to the Senate

#273

Post by WarOnPrivacy » Mon, Jun 17, 2024, 5:59 PM UTC

Tepix wrote: post #78

empath75 wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's definitely economic protectionism but it's mostly protectionism for national security reasons. I assume the US is going to start manufacturing drones for war in large numbers in the near term and they need to be made at home (or at least by allies).

Those drones will be built for war, how are they competing with DJI who refuses to let their drones be used for war?

> DJI who refuses to let their drones be used for war?

As others point out, DJI can't control what buyers do (a good default).

Perhaps it would be more accurate to say DJI won't manufacture drones for offensive war use. This sharply limits their usefulness to the US Military.

Either way, using US Mil as an excuse doesn't make sense for a ban. They won't be buying gear they have reason to mistrust.

As ever, reasons for the ban seem to be evidence-free speculation. Articles that omit this key part of the story aren't serving their readers.

Re: DJI ban passes the House and moves on to the Senate

#274

Post by antisthenes » Mon, Jun 17, 2024, 5:59 PM UTC

stavros wrote: post #237

danem wrote: post #234

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The resistance to socialized healthcare in America can be easily understood without resorting to bizarre strawmen about hating poor people. Healthcare is of course a huge part of our economy and lives. Many (most?) people are satisfied with the status quo and are hesitant to see (what they consider to be) a huge increase in government power, spending, and general involvement in their lives. It's the same impulse that…

Will it be a huge increase in spending? Isn't it estimated to reduce costs by a lot?

Yes, the resistance is because the private sector will lose a lot of (parasitic) jobs. It's a non-starter to attempt to reduce health insurance companies power, because it would gut their employee numbers.

It's an unsavory thought, but the US has a significant amount of people employed in the business of denying healthcare to other people, which amounts to hundreds of thousands of jobs.

Any politician attempting to fix this would be committing political suicide.

Re: DJI ban passes the House and moves on to the Senate

#275

Post by chme » Mon, Jun 17, 2024, 6:00 PM UTC

blantonl wrote: post #136

glitchcrab wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What an utterly ridiculous response. In your eyes, businesses should be able to run roughshod over the consumer? Yes, maybe the laws could have been more polished or have been implemented in a better way, but the underlying idea of protecting the consumer is the important takeaway from these laws.

to also be fair, I just recently returned from Europe and I was shocked at how maddeningly frustrating it was to simply use the Web. Between shockingly obtrusive GDPR consent forms and outright blocks on Websites from EU consumers, it was a wild look at what Europeans have to go through under the guise of consumer protections. Like, the pendulum swung WAY too far in the other direction.

AFAIK many cookie consent banners are actually against the law. IIUC denying any non-essential cookies should always be as easy as accepting all cookies. This is something many cookie banners have not managed.

So to me this seems more like the tech-companies and websites being annoying at implementing an easy solution, in order to rebel against the laws and make people angry at it for the inconvenience, then the law itself being bad.

(https://measuredcollective.com/why-your-cookie-banner-is-pro...)

Re: DJI ban passes the House and moves on to the Senate

#276

Post by quentindemetz » Mon, Jun 17, 2024, 6:00 PM UTC

influx wrote: post #230

mrtksn wrote: post #208

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's a meme on Twitter, essentially libertarians are pushing the idea that EU killed its tech industry through heavy reagulation and by tech they mean online advertisement. They keep posting graphs of market capitalisation claiming that Europe must be failing because doesn't have speculative public trading stocks. There's also the top-list theme, making list of top-10 companies by market cap, claiming that if your co…

What's the counter examples to highlight Europe's tech successes? Skype? Nokia? Soundcloud? Spotify?

Adyen

Revolut

GoCardless

Shift

Vinted

…

Re: DJI ban passes the House and moves on to the Senate

#277

Post by rockemsockem » Mon, Jun 17, 2024, 6:00 PM UTC

stavros wrote: post #237

danem wrote: post #234

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The resistance to socialized healthcare in America can be easily understood without resorting to bizarre strawmen about hating poor people. Healthcare is of course a huge part of our economy and lives. Many (most?) people are satisfied with the status quo and are hesitant to see (what they consider to be) a huge increase in government power, spending, and general involvement in their lives. It's the same impulse that…

Will it be a huge increase in spending? Isn't it estimated to reduce costs by a lot?

I think they mean it's an increase in government spending, which would of course be true even if overall healthcare overhead spending is reduced.

Re: DJI ban passes the House and moves on to the Senate

#278

Post by EgregiousCube » Mon, Jun 17, 2024, 6:00 PM UTC

stavros wrote: post #212

newfriend wrote: post #195

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is a strawman. "Rich" people don't want socialized healthcare because of perceived or real disadvantages of that system. Not because "the poors might get it". Also the "temporarily embarrassed millionaire" is another strawman, used by those who dislike capitalism. People can and do support a variety of causes and policies without they themselves benefitting from them.

> "Rich" people don't want socialized healthcare because of perceived or real disadvantages of that system. Not because "the poors might get it". That's fair, I should have said "because the poors might benefit". Rich people don't like socialized healthcare because they, by definition, will pay for people who can't afford it. The problem is when people who will benefit from this identify with people who will lose fro…

You'll find very few people who don't want poor people to have things and it's disingenuous to put it that way.

The two commonly held arguments against socialized healthcare in America are: First, a distrust that the government will create a system that is good and a belief that quality will decrease under such a system, and;

Second, that such a system would be funded by a large tax increase and that Americans are in general hard to get excited about tax increases. The financial concern is in the taking, not in the getting.

Re: DJI ban passes the House and moves on to the Senate

#279

Post by redserk » Mon, Jun 17, 2024, 6:01 PM UTC

markemer wrote: post #220

ulfw wrote: post #146

So what's America's plan to survive? Ban almost everything they used to buy? (i.e. goods manufactured in China) Which Made in the Good Ol' US of A consumer drones are people supposed to purchase instead of a DJI Mini?

We make so much in China, I don’t get what the deal is, here. Just that a US billionaire isn’t making the money?

Once DJI gets banned, a new consumer company will come around and will happily import all the parts from China then slap on a substantial markup. I'm placing bets that DJI will somehow whitelabel the drones.

It's funny the lengths the US public and political machine will go to avoid blaming the business sector that outsourced all of everything to China over the last few decades. Chinese manufacturing got the tools and know-how to build these devices and have done a great job iterating on that knowledge across many different sectors and product categories.

Re: DJI ban passes the House and moves on to the Senate

#280

Post by dji4321234 » Mon, Jun 17, 2024, 6:01 PM UTC

gandalfgeek wrote: post #265

Keep seeing DJI drones at local police dept open houses. They even have a "drone unit" that specializes in SAR, hazardous recon type scenarios. Given extensive existing use throughout US local law enforcement, fire depts etc, not sure if this will actually happen. Or maybe they all mass-migrate to Anduril solutions?

It's going to be a disaster for SAR, policing, firefighting, and all kinds of public good. The whole thing is an incredibly shortsighted move that will literally cost lives.

The goal, I think, is that these organizations will migrate to Skydio or BRINC (as they have the only reasonably viable drones for most of these use cases IMHO).

The reality is that they'll buy Autel (just as Chinese as DJI) or just keep using DJI and hoping the FCC Radio Police don't show up, which is probably a safe bet. Anduril don't really sell into this space.