What will be good alternatives to DJI then?
DJI ban passes the House and moves on to the Senate
621–630 of 742 posts
Re: DJI ban passes the House and moves on to the Senate
#622In 2016, Tesla released the Model 3. When Chinese consumers wanted the most advanced electric vehicles, the Chinese government communicated with Tesla in 2017 about building a factory in Shanghai to produce China-made Teslas. Currently, Tesla is the highest-selling pure electric vehicle brand in China ( Model Y sales in China in December last year were 60,055 volumes
) The intense competition in the electric vehicle market has fostered the development of high-quality Chinese EV brands such as NIO, Li Auto, XPeng, BYD, Zeekr, Xiaomi, Aion... ...
In contrast, in the free and democratic America market, the response to competition in the drone market has been to ban DJI, and the response to competition in the short video market has been to ban tiktok.
Let’s see in ten years which market environment will foster advanced productivity.
Re: DJI ban passes the House and moves on to the Senate
#623Earlier quoted context omitted.
> American brands are much, much more aggressive about making you connect to the internet, install our apps, create an account This whataboutism ignores one very important point. When you connect a device to an American company they might do things that we consider privacy violations, while still staying generally within the bounds of the law. We like to joke about data going to the NSA or something, but in the extre…
The idea of running any internet-connected software with a push-update mechanism, built and controlled by a company in a country without a strong independent rule of law, should terrify far more people than it apparently does. This is one of those 'It's not a problem until it is a problem, and then it's a big fucking problem' scenarios.
It's pretty obvious that this is not a problem at all, the only problem right now it's fabricating a narrative where someone is bad "because" while everyone allied with us (the west) it's not "because not".
You seem to be worried that an unfair judicial system poses a threat to everyone connected to the internet, well I got some news for you: Uber received $3.5 billion from Saudi Arabia's Public Investment Fund and they are planning now to invest $40 billion on AI. Why are US companies accepting money from a bloodthirsty dictatorship then? A dictatorship where the actual dictator, Bin Salman, among other things, detained three members of the royal family (his family) for unexplained reasons, ordered the assassination of the journalist Jamal Khashoggi and that, even more worrisome, had spies in Twitter and McKinsey that helped him track down dissidents and silence critics. McKinsey and Twitter are still actively working with the Saudis and nobody has nothing to say about it... Not surprisingly the Saudi Prince Alwaleed is the second largest investor in twitter ATM through the Kingdom Holding.
Maybe we should refocus our priorities on the issues at large, not just those issues that are beneficial to the US in their war for the global supremacy.
Re: DJI ban passes the House and moves on to the Senate
#624Earlier quoted context omitted.
Any concrete examples you are referring to?
Can start with the number of unicorns in USA vs Europe, especially when you take population in to account https://www.failory.com/unicorns
How many of those unicorns are financial black holes never expecting to turn a profit?
And the inclusion of so many cryptocurrency "unicorns" in that list is also quite telling.
Re: DJI ban passes the House and moves on to the Senate
#625Earlier quoted context omitted.
Obsession with pricing the stock is not healthy. According to western reports, China is at least 15 years ahead of US in Nuclear for example: https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/us-many-15-years-beh... Or public infrastructure, or transportation, or electric cars etc. US is stil ahead in some stuff but the list is getting smaller as the market caps getting bigger and people "richer".
>Obsession with pricing the stock is not healthy. I'm not claiming it is, just that it's far more objective and far less fudgeable than the alternatives. >According to western reports, China is at least 15 years ahead of US in Nuclear for example: https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/us-many-15-years-beh ... >Or public infrastructure, or transportation, or electric cars etc. Arguably all of those is more due to go…
> it's far more objective and far less fudgeable than the alternatives.
It's not objective in the least. Stock markets are pure speculation.
Re: DJI ban passes the House and moves on to the Senate
#626Earlier quoted context omitted.
People die from inability to afford something as fundamental as healthcare in the US. You are poorer than any European ever could be.
> You are poorer than any European ever could be Are you talking about me, personally, or Americans in general? I suppose it doesn't really matter - you'd be wrong in either case. The median person in the poorest US state is richer than the median person in the UK, for example. Most Americans grumble about paying for healthcare, and we are getting ripped off, but it's also very rare for someone to actually die becaus…
> some form
These words are doing some very heavy lifting.
Re: DJI ban passes the House and moves on to the Senate
#627Earlier quoted context omitted.
Cookie consent only apply to non-necessary cookies. The laws are great because every cookie consent form is essentially saying, "we as a company want you to accept a cookie that is unnecessary." If you don't install unnecessary cookies, you don't need to have a consent form.
> Cookie consent only apply to non-necessary cookies. There’s a different issue here: lawyers and companies are often concerned that what they deem necessary will be deemed unnecessary when challenged. So, they require cookie consent preemptively to avoid liability in case they get it wrong.
There's no chance in hell those 2761 "partners" that ask for user data are ever necessary
Re: DJI ban passes the House and moves on to the Senate
#628Earlier quoted context omitted.
Also since national markets in Europe are relatively big by themselves a lot of companies tend to be satisfied with comfort of a single market success.
And once you've got control of one EU country, expanding to another EU country is just as complicated as expanding to the US is. So if you're spending the same effort anyway, expanding to the US with 300 million people is much more profitable than expanding to Germany with 80 million people, or the Netherlands with 20 million people. Which is why Spotify became available in Sweden, the US, and the rest of the EU in t…
> Which is why Spotify became available in Sweden, the US, and the rest of the EU in that order.
Which is verifiably false.
Spotify launched in 2006, and expanded into the US in 2011. You truly believe that it never expanded in the EU in the intervening 5 years? How then did it launch in the UK in 2009? Or how did it have a million paying customers in the EU by the time they launched in the US?
Re: DJI ban passes the House and moves on to the Senate
#629It's interesting to see how the reactions differ between here and the articles on the ban on TikTok. And some even thought that the users who wrote to their government representatives were bots! Whenever the US bans or sanctions something, that impacts people, whether it's drone nerds or teens looking at silly videos. It just so happens that most people here seem to be outside of the TikTok target demographic, so we…
What this thread and the tiktok thread really showed me is how many Chinese bots there are on HN.
Not everyone with an opinion you dislike is a bot.
Re: DJI ban passes the House and moves on to the Senate
#630It's a bit odd. Isn't DJI selling lots of drones to Ukraine and Russia?
(possibly through middlemen so they have trouble preventing it, but still)