I went into remission that fall, and set myself to moving beyond cancer while also beginning to process the changes it had wrought on my body, and the nearness of my brush with death.

What I’m suggesting is that it’s at best sloppy, and at worst corrupt, to arbitrarily apply rules in the way the EU is doing. If you think it’s wrong for a hardware manufacturer to be the sole operator of an app or software store on their platform, that’s fine. Make your rule, apply it to everyone, and give people N years to come into compliance.

The reason the EU isn’t doing that in these cases is because they don’t want to apply these laws to EU companies, and it gives them leverage in negotiations with foreign companies.

Plenty of other companies manufacture hardware and run stores. If we’re going to say that isn’t allowed, then at least make the rule across the board.

How many new companies will be popping up to manufacture these types of devices? Not many.

I think the reality is that the EU sees an opportunity to apply some pressure on a few successful foreign companies, as that potentially provides them leverage in other negotiations, or at the very least some revenue from fines.

You’re describing racketeering, and in your analogy, you have a store.

But in reality, you don’t have a store, so the hypothetical doesn’t make any sense.

Do you want to try rail lines? You want to ship your HATS on a freight TRAIN, but you don’t have a TRAIN or even a RAIL.

Do you think the rail owner or the freight train will carry your product for free?

1) find some space on the shelf and your stock room to put my stuff! 2) I don’t have a store with shelves or visiting customers, but you will sell this for me at 0% profit!

You’re paying for sales access to millions of devices with frictionless checkout.

And you want to… make it harder to check out? Because you think you’re entitled sell things to their user base?

No one wants to go to your website. You’re crazy.

You and all your friends could install solar and batteries and drive EVs and all the energy consumption for your house, cooking, and travel could be totally green and renewable. That's great! But in the US in 2025, 63% of energy consumption is commercial+industrial [1].

National policies need to be set to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and deforestation through clean alternatives, subsidies, regulation, and probably treaties. If you can make green cheaper and/or a better product functionally, you don't have to convince people.

  [1] 
  [2] 
  [3] 

I know the answer to both of these questions, and so do you.

If this fee makes sense, then they should also remove any existing taxes for roads and assess the fee to every car.

If so, there was no point in dividing into groups.

That said, I am sure athletes and governing bodies could agree on a better solution than outright banning- for example all it takes is a group that pairs a freakishly long armed swimmer with not, and they compete as pairs. Or an open group- maybe someone without freakishly long arms will find a way to win.

Anyway, it’s sports, people will min/max everything you let them, and we know from history they may bend or break rules as well. At the end of the day someone has to make a rule and enforce it, over time it will evolve.

From what has been shared publicly, they absolutely did ask for contractual limits on domestic mass surveillance to be removed, and to my read, likely technical/software restrictions to be removed as well.

What the department of defense is legally allowed to do is irrelevant and a red herring.

No one is going to do that. They’re going to package them separately and ship the box. And the onus is STILL on the user to manually add a charger to their cart. When they forget or don’t realize, they’ll complain, just like people are complaining here.

The EU made a bad rule. They should have exempted electronics above a certain price point. Their rule only really makes sense in the context of junk that costs $9.99 being shipped with a cheap charger and cables that no one wants.

If you listen to the interview, Dario is talking about the Trump trade deal with Nvidia being allowed to sell H200 chips to China, but the USA gets some taxes. He thinks it’s a bad deal for long term national security. He likens it to “selling NK nuclear weapons and bragging that the casings are made by Boeing”.

It’s not about AI/nukes being equivalents- it’s about making a bad deal with a rival, giving them something they want / reducing your superiority, just so you can brag about having made a deal.

Dario criticized the Trump admin policy of allowing Nvidia to sell advanced chipsets to China as being poor for long term national security. He said our model edge is dependent on the HW edge, and likened this Trump “deal” to selling nuclear weapons to NK and bragging that the casings were made by Boeing. You can go watch the video yourself.

He was attacking the Trump trade deal as being bad, and characterizing Trump as more concerned with being able to name drop a US company and say he made a great deal, rather than actually doing what is in the best interest of the country.

Do you just believe everything you read on the internet? Or was it Ben the bloggers amazing credentials of being an Apple INTERN in the company culture group? He’s a real philosopher king I’m sure.