> is absolute crap ... as we can see by the outcomes Which outcomes? safety or productivity? Because all kinds of useful stuff is built in an unsafe manner.

> is absolute crap ... as we can see by the outcomes Which outcomes? safety or productivity? Because all kinds of useful stuff is built in an unsafe manner. > We need much higher standards for anything engineered for the public. I think you're imagining a world where the same software exists, but safer. What you would actually get is far less useful software. > Could you give an example? China, Russia, Hungary, Turkey, India, etc. are not known for their regulatory burdens. But the US and UK are, increasingly so. Voter registration makes it harder to vote. Backdoor requirements in messaging apps (like what the UK tried to pass recently) can be used to target journalists and limit our freedom of speech. Misinformation regulations can be misused for censorship (which facts are wrong/inconvenient? let the government decide). And recently on HN - regulations on AI safety are being pushed by the incumbent players (e.g openai) to keep out new ones. > The EU has plenty of regulation and is arguably the leading region for democracy. And is far, far behind on innovation. Mistral and deepmind are rare counterexamples on the long tail of the bell curve. > Some regulations make innovation easier; for example, standardized Internet protocols Do you mean the IETF? Because that's not a government nor regulatory body. It's a great example of the actual engineers involved, not bureaucrats, working together outside of regulatory bodies to make stuff work. > I didn't say regulation doesn't hamper innovation, I said it depends on the regulation. >> An inverse relationship between pace of innovation and regulation is an unsupported claim by people who simply want to do whatever they like and/or want unrestricted personal Yeah, you kinda did.