Yeah this (and lawsuits/investigations) are why, the employer owns the data, in some contexts (like this one) it can become an asset (or a liability) but in either case it's not yours.

Of course that only gets you part of the way there anyway see Twitch recently opting in all users by default to mined for AI and only adding an opt out after backlash with a quote that was so on the nose it made me stop "If we'd have asked them to opt in, they wouldn't have opted in" (paraphrasing but it was that blunt).

To be honest I think the reason I stopped care was more that I started using Linux as an OS in the 90's and over time more and more of my computing life was on Linux (except gaming) so by 2004 (or a little earlier) Windows was just for games.

  reg.exe add "HKCU\Software\Classes\CLSID\{86ca1aa0-34aa-4e8b-a509-50c905bae2a2}\InprocServer32" /f /ve

So much of windows 11 configuration is removing things you never asked for and putting things back.

Source: https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/answers/questions/2287432/...

Well done.

Far better to just sit back and watch them blunder from unforced error to unforced error while you quietly achieve whatever your long term goals are.

Not could, already have.

That ship sailed, reached it's destination, had a leisurely visit to the chandlery and is on the way back to do it again.

A rule is only a rule if it's enforced.

It would also require us leaving a whole bunch of international treaties though since "Nationalising a pop singer" kinda breaches a few of them.

Indeed, it also acts as a counter balance/hedge against the US's demands in the future.

The problem for Europe is simply that we need to trade with both sides fairly openly or our entire economic model collapses - We are massively dependent on US technology and Chinese industrial capacity - too dependent frankly.

No war was "needed" to settle who was #1, it was clear that we (the UK) simply couldn't maintain the empire as it was and we definitely couldn't have fought the US.

We went into WW2 the clear naval power in the world, We exited it in the #2 spot utterly broke.

In less than 4 years the US produced enough ships to eclipse our navy and did it while also producing ridiculously vast amounts of equipment for themselves and their allies across every sphere.

No one with a brain in our foreign office would have even contemplated poking that (and realistically while the US has at times been a questionable ally on the whole in that era they were a reliable ally).

In that kind of total war the side with the larger industrial base wins the war of attrition.

It doesn't matter if the enemy sinks ships if your production rate exceeds the sink rate on a sustained basis you win (somewhat related it's also why naval strategists have been sounding the clarion call about the fact that China now makes more than half of all global shipping, the US is somewhere around 1% - those peacetime yards/skilled works transfer over in a war).

The US did that, they won the war (or their part of it) in the factory lines/mines as much as they did on the actual front.

For some people in Europe now, they think about whether the thing they are buying/subscribing to is in the US or owned by a US company in a way that simply didn't happen in the recent past.

> “It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it!” - Upton Sinclair

Think I first saw that on a usenet post, as true now as then and just as true as it was in the 1930's when he wrote it (in at least that form).

Canada opposed it originally and then quietly signed it most recently, the UK didn't start this stuff though we are up to our tea drinking little necks in it as usual.

It's frustrating to vote for the person you disagree with least (by a little or a lot).

AKA It's fine if I do locally horrible things if in aggregate I do more good than bad*

* by whatever metric of good I self select for - terms & conditions apply, much CO2 may be released.

Legal requirement that they do in the UK (though in metric units), so it's £/L and £/Kg (or for smaller items per 100g and then some nuance on unit prices for things not sold by weight/volume).

It does make their shenanigans with multipacks and such way more obvious by design.

> The PMO also requires traders, where applicable, to display the ‘unit price’ – which is the price which would be charged for the relevant unit of the goods, depending upon how the goods are sold. Unit pricing can be a useful tool for consumers. It allows consumers to compare the price and value of similar products. This can be helpful when making a decision between similar products that are sold in different sizes or quantities.

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/price-marking-ord...