81–90 of 97 posts
I left the EU years ago. Today, I feel way happier and freer. Once you're out, you realize how strongly they were influencing your ability to be free via rules, taxes, news, low salaries, and business start-up costs. Try it yourself if you get the chance.
Give us a vague breakdown of you finances, might do.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Probably, but as I mentioned before, the EU has been using the DSA as a negotiating tool against the US - just like we are using Free Speech absolutism and "censorship" as a tool against the EU in negotiations. Unlike other major tech companies like Meta or Alphabet that fall under the DSA, X doesn't have a similar presence in the EU to give it a firewall. Alphabet has Poland on it's side [0], Meta has Ireland on it'…
alephnerd, I have to flat out disagree with your grievances [0][1][2][3][4][5]. The more I read, the worse it gets. The fact that some people in a foreign country feel personally persecuted by the DSA and are willing to bully us around is not a good argument against it [1]. In fact, I think the American attitude of having "red lines" about this is quite frankly irrelevant to the bigger picture [2]. I think there are…
For example, he might personally support DSA/GDPR, but he says that the US generally views these as “non-tariff barriers” to US service companies[0] and doesn’t bother evaluating the policies themselves. essentially saying for the purposes of predicting how the US will react, it's sufficient to analyze how the US views them and the actual policy details lose relevance in that context. He also shared a detail[0] about how the US placed their lobbyists as commissioners on GDPR, which is an interesting operational detail that argues against the broad support argument you’re making. Another question is whether there would still be broad support for some policy after it has been enacted and its adverse effects have been felt.
[0] - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46170027#46174642
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If every government in the world has a say on everything, nothing is permitted.
They do though within their borders?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
alephnerd, I have to flat out disagree with your grievances [0][1][2][3][4][5]. The more I read, the worse it gets. The fact that some people in a foreign country feel personally persecuted by the DSA and are willing to bully us around is not a good argument against it [1]. In fact, I think the American attitude of having "red lines" about this is quite frankly irrelevant to the bigger picture [2]. I think there are…
Of course no one cares about random companies in Czechia or France getting pressured; it's not meant to sway public opinion in Sweden, otherwise it would have been a waste of influence (money). I think alephnerd operates on a higher level of abstraction in his commentary, and you mistake this as him making specific validity claims about the policies. I think your grievances stem from this gap in abstraction. For exam…
This.
> I think alephnerd operates on a higher level of abstraction in his commentary, and you mistake this as him making specific validity claims about the policies. I think your grievances stem from this gap in abstraction.
This (but does make me sound kind of pretentious). I started my career in Tech Policy (and considered a career in academia for a hot second) before pivoting to being a technical IC and climbing the ladder. I am responding as I would when I was a TF.
--------
I am a supporter of multilateralism and do think the EU was a net benefit, but the EU's approach to unanimity should have been reformed during the 2004-07 expansion, and the Eurozone should have been decoupled from the political goals of the EU then unified. I'd probably say I lean closer to reformist academics like Draghi and Garicano.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Probably, but as I mentioned before, the EU has been using the DSA as a negotiating tool against the US - just like we are using Free Speech absolutism and "censorship" as a tool against the EU in negotiations. Unlike other major tech companies like Meta or Alphabet that fall under the DSA, X doesn't have a similar presence in the EU to give it a firewall. Alphabet has Poland on it's side [0], Meta has Ireland on it'…
alephnerd, I have to flat out disagree with your grievances [0][1][2][3][4][5]. The more I read, the worse it gets. The fact that some people in a foreign country feel personally persecuted by the DSA and are willing to bully us around is not a good argument against it [1]. In fact, I think the American attitude of having "red lines" about this is quite frankly irrelevant to the bigger picture [2]. I think there are…
No worries. I think you misunderstood my post.
I used to work in the tech policy space, and I'm just bluntly explaining how we in the policymaking space view these discussions - especially with regards to negotiating with the EU.
> As a Swede, I can tell you that not a single person I know cares about random companies in Czechia, Luxembourg, Germany or France getting pressured
Well duh. You aren't the target for such an influence op. Leadership in (eg.) Czechia, Luxembourg, Germany or France are.
Much of the EU runs on unanimity, so all you need to do is pressure a single country and you have a veto.
This is what China has been doing with Sweden to a certain extent via Geely-owned Volvo Car Group and Polestar [0] and what we in the US have been doing with Ericcson [1][2][3]. Even the EU tries to use similar levers against the US [6].
To be brutally honest, this is how the game is played.
Most nations have now adopted the "elite-centric approach" to transnational negotiations [4], which makes it difficult for the EU, because the line between national soverignity and the EU with regards to foreign and economic affairs is not well defined. If you are not a veto player [5] your opinion does not matter.
Once you understand Political Science basics, a lot of stuff starts making sense. And I went to a college where heads of states would visit on a biweekly basis, and a large subset of European (and other regions) leaders attended or recruit from.
> What's your take on the next Gripen?
DoA if it depends on a GE power plant - the Volvo engine is a licensed version of the GE F404, so the US has final say on any Saab Gripen exports.
[0] - https://www.theguardian.com/business/2025/dec/02/china-volvo...
[1] - https://broadbandbreakfast.com/ericsson-ceo-calls-for-increa...
[2] - https://www.fierce-network.com/wireless/ericsson-ceo-home-si...
[3] - https://www.wsj.com/articles/ericsson-emerges-as-5g-leader-a...
[4] - https://academic.oup.com/book/12848/chapter-abstract/1631276...
[5] - https://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctt7rvv7
[6] - https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/21/business/economy/europe-t...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not sure how much "It's stupid" adds to the conversation. GP made an argument.
Maybe it’s stupid in your perspective. nevertheless; nations have the right to put laws in place and enterprises willing to provide goods and services ought to follow those rules.
I left the EU years ago. Today, I feel way happier and freer. Once you're out, you realize how strongly they were influencing your ability to be free via rules, taxes, news, low salaries, and business start-up costs. Try it yourself if you get the chance.
How do people find so much to complain about?
Why can a company be fined for not allowing "researchers" access to data? That seems bizarre to me.
https://www.reuters.com/sustainability/boards-policy-regulat...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Let's see; \1 In real actual history, the US didn't developed a working nuclear weapon based on UK provided designs until after the German surrender. So in real history there was no chance to "glass" an active EU war zone during WWII. \2 In the GP's fantasy history in which the US left Europe alone to deal with the Nazi's on their own, the MAUD folk would have never passed on their research to the US and the US would…
This is historical revisionism. The US saw the MAUD report before entering the war. American scientists received copies as early as October (chemist James Conant received it october 3). But the US didnt commit to entering the war until after Pearl Harbor, December 8. You are mixing the order of events. Second you are overstating its importance. The primary contribution of the report is scientific feasibility. Every p…
Mark Oliphant made several advances and presentations in person before the US were convinced.
It's on record that regardless of any papers read, whether from the UK group, the Germans, the Japanese, et al. US scientists largely remained skeptical that a bomb was possible until repeated outside influence resulted in outside scientists baby walking them through the approach and the numbers.
> You are mixing the order of events.
* The German Instrument of Surrender was a legal document effecting the unconditional surrender of the remaining German armed forces to the Allies, ending World War II in Europe. It was signed at 22:43 CET on 8 May 1945
* Trinity was the first detonation of a nuclear weapon, conducted by the United States Army at 5:29 a.m. Mountain War Time (11:29:21 GMT) on July 16, 1945, as part of the Manhattan Project.
It would appear Germany did, as stated, surrender before the US had an actual working atomic bomb.
> Every part of the engineering and design of the bombs was done in secret in the US without any other country collaboration.
is straight up ahistorical; both the UK and Canada were deeply invovled in the project until, at least, the Atomic Energy Act of 1946. They played a crucial role in technique (magnetic seperation, etc.), raw material provision, provided a number of personal, etc.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_contribution_to_the_Ma...
Define this type of action as "bureaucratic piracy". Any rule which preferentially targets US interests over domestic either in its creation or its enforcement. Apply some of that "disparate outcomes" logic.