Disliking Facebook shouldn't have you supporting government overreach. Defending people or groups you don't like is how you know you have actual convictions.

Curious where Intel, AMD, Nvidia, etc are in your "cheap Chinese hardware"?

And by "role", do you mean doing the majority of the R&D behind the modern hardware we all use?

I mean, that's certainly a take. A wholly inaccurate one, but it's a take.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Iranian_officials_kill...

And what a strange consensus it is. The prevailing belief seems to be that preventing people from slowly/quickly killing themselves on the street (or, more accurately, dying from addiction) is somehow not "progressive" and the moral thing to do is to pretend like these people have made the choice of their own volition and that we cannot judge them for this choice.

In reality, the people who are just rotting away on our streets would be better served if they were brought somewhere against their will and kept there until they were better. Society would also be better served if we did this. The government choosing to involuntarily constrain people isn't something that should be done lightly, but sometimes it is the lesser evil. We've completely abandoned these people and somehow done so in the name of compassion. It's really depressing.

That seems to violate the GDPR more than the current state, no? If I accidentally click on your profile you're entitled to my name and employer and that's your data now? Makes no sense, other than from a "GDPR good, US tech bad!" angle, I guess.

It would be excellent for the consumer, in the rather short term, to not keep them out. Cheap cars! Cheap goods flooding our markets are great for consumers in the short term.

> American car manufacturers have extremely small market shares outside N.A

Here's a game:

One company is American. The other is not.

Company 1 Market Share: North America: 16.5% South America: 8.9% Asia: 7.6%

Company 2 Market Share: North America: 14.87% South America: 8.3% Asia: 8.28%

Now, without looking, which is the "US company without market share outside of NA", and which is the foreign company that understands how to compete?

There's a lot of data around that in the history of the US and Japan?

"Dynamic" is doing a hell of a lot of work there. I guess what you mean is steal technology from the west, undercut pricing on foreign goods and dump products in their markets to destroy the competition, end up being the last one standing, because you freely violate trade agreements (as a member of the WTO) and other treaties.

> " so they have developed their path to energy independence with their solar and wind industry along with electrified transit of all type"

They have more coal power than the rest of the world combined, and are building more. Their "path to energy independence with their solar and wind" is purely propaganda.

>they know they’re never going to be a big oil producer

They're literally the sixth largest, just behind Iraq and ahead of Iran. I'm pretty sure people consider Iraq a "big oil producer", right? They also have the 13th most proven untapped oil reserves, and likely more than that since they're not in the business of oversharing.

The idea that we should allow cheap vehicles to flood the domestic market because that will "cause the US auto manufacturers compete" ignores the wholly uneven playing field at work here, and the government backed goal of one side. Just the cost of labor alone makes that not an approachable thing to do.

On the reverse "bad" US side, we have more and more international auto manufacturers building and investing in factories in the US every year. Strangely, this decision involves billions of dollars and years of work to make happen. It's not based on internet vibes.

And the "renewable" growth is really kind of misleading. They're also building more coal power plants than the rest of the earth, combined, each year. They represent ~50% of the worldwide coal power in use today and produce roughly one third of the total CO2 in the world now, almost 3x that of the US.

But I guess the future is government funded undercutting of international competitors, using technology stolen by the government from those competitors, in order to destroy those competitors, while using very dirty and cheap energy to do so? Is that the lesson we're supposed to learn from them?

I really don't understand what the point of the quote you're citing? Or how it goes against what I was saying?

The best thing you can do would be to use E2EE. That would be the most secure thing. It won't, however, prevent the makers of your E2EE product from reading the messages once they're unencrypted, regardless of who makes it.

https://lifehacker.com/tech/meta-is-not-scraping-dms-to-trai...

It ruled that the federal government was wrong to restrict the speech rights of some groups while allowing other very similar groups to still retain their rights. One of the major examples of this was the media industry. A for-profit newspaper company could spend whatever amount of money it wanted to on political speech. An identical company in a different field could not. This, the court ruled, was unconstitutional.

It also did not grant corporations personhood, the other thing people like to state that it did.

The Anker Nano Power Bank (5K, MagGo, Slim). No screen, charges via USBC.

https://www.anker.com/products/a1665-5k-ultra-slim-qi2-power...

If you spend $XXX million / year with them on GCP they will, however, assign a person to be your main point of contact.

The acquisition was 8 years ago.