0xy

15 ms·

331.
by 0xy 1y ago
And the gigantic AWS-tier bandwidth costs. This misses the mark by a lot. Classic example of pricing ruining a launch of decent technology. It seems like always-on containers are not viable on this, so what's the point?
332.
by 0xy 1y ago
Both parties wilfully fund genocide and mess around with regime change. Trump does seem more restrained than most presidents, but it's hard to agree with this move. All the Middle East calamities have begun with targeted and limited op
333.
by 0xy 1y ago
Seems like a major wtf if Cloudflare is using GCP as a key dependency.
334.
by 0xy 1y ago
As streaming becomes just as bad as cable, the same alternatives back then still exist: piracy. No ads, better quality, portable format, no DRM. A consumer's dream.
335.
by 0xy 1y ago
Biden used executive authority on tariffs repeatedly, the same method Trump is using. And you're totally incorrect, Biden maintained the existing IEEPA tariffs on China that were imposed in Trump's first term.
336.
by 0xy 1y ago
The Biden admin not only kept the first Trump admin's China tariffs in place but significantly expanded them under the same law. Was Biden acting like a king or does this analogy only go one way? https://edition.cnn.com&#x2F
337.
by 0xy 1y ago
WhatsApp isn't E2EE by default either, since default flow pushes you to backup your key to Google Drive. Signal isn't E2EE, given the security blunder in which private images from your gallery were sent to random contacts (which i
338.
by 0xy 1y ago
I presume you had the same impression during the Clinton Foundation influence peddling operation? Or the Burisma cash-for-access scandal?
339.
by 0xy 1y ago
I'm moving to the US on a K1 visa, is it possible to expedite an EAD on the basis of a job offer in an AI field?
340.
by 0xy 1y ago
Even if they sold all stock immediately upon vest, they made several million dollars in the worst case scenario. Likely much more.
341.
by 0xy 1y ago
Because it is statistically impossible. As I said, the parties have totally flipped at least once. Bias beyond that point makes no sense. Democrats were pro slavery if you go back far enough. Bias still exists back then.
342.
by 0xy 1y ago
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/topics/en/article/20230601STO... https://www.euronews.com/next/2024/10/08/why-openais-voice-m... The EU despises technical advancement and w
343.
by 0xy 1y ago
Absolutely I mean that. They'll get left behind, again. Like every other major economic and technical breakthrough. While the US and China battle fiercely, the EU is still on their 3 hour lunch break.
344.
by 0xy 1y ago
March jobs numbers were significantly better than expected. 70% better than estimated.
345.
by 0xy 1y ago
March jobs and inflation numbers were significantly better than expected. Milk and eggs are down 30% from the peak. The middle class and poor are focused on buying food and gas, not on their stock portfolio.
346.
by 0xy 1y ago
The EU is hostile to all emerging technologies like AI, why would any scientist go there? Let alone the poverty wages you'll earn and the 50%+ tax you'll pay.
347.
by 0xy 1y ago
The figures stretch back hundreds of years, ironically even to the team Democrats and Republicans were ideologically flipped. It shows a pretty clear bias. Just reading some of the articles confirms as such. Biden's son is credibly acc
348.
by 0xy 1y ago
Aside from the blatant political bias, Wikipedia is a hornet's nest of intelligence pushing agendas. [1] https://manhattan.institute/article/is-wikipedia-politically...
349.
by 0xy 1y ago
What a dystopian nightmare. I don't care if you can 'opt out', we know where this leads. Windows continues to spiral into garbage after years of ads, spying and worsening of core apps (Explorer is an unusable Electron atrocit
350.
by 0xy 2y ago
Unless you're EU company Spotify, who got a carve-out from the DMA despite being a monopoly gatekeeper :)
351.
by 0xy 2y ago
Explain why Spotify got a carve-out from the DMA despite being an effective monopoly gatekeeper. Is it because it's an EU company and the DMA is a tax on the United States? 'The law that applies only to US companies is applied equ
352.
by 0xy 2y ago
The thread is specifically about DMA. My parent comment mentions DMA specifically. This 'EU enforces the law equally' position is nonsense, considering Spotify, an EU company, was carved out from the DMA. Sounds legit!
353.
by 0xy 2y ago
So they haven't gone after a single EU company and the ONLY court cases or investigations on DMA were specifically US companies?
354.
by 0xy 2y ago
Absolute nonsense, of course. Your case disintegrates completely given Spotify was given a specific and targeted carve-out in DMA. The law is written to arbitrarily tax US "gatekeepers" while explicitly excluding EU gatekeepers. B
355.
by 0xy 2y ago
The DMA is already a tax on US tech companies specifically, given it is enforced exclusively against US tech. Hence the retaliatory tariffs. The backdoor taxes through 'laws' (that are NEVER enforced against EU companies -- Spotif
356.
by 0xy 2y ago
You're trying to claim a law that is exclusively used to fleece U.S. companies and never EU competitors is 'not bad faith'? When has the DMA been used against EU tech companies? Never. Your comment also shows a fundamental mi
357.
by 0xy 2y ago
There hasn't been a single DMA fine against an EU company, ever. Nor have any been investigated. The DMA is a tax on the United States. Look no further than its enforcement and its text (highly targeted).
358.
by 0xy 2y ago
Link me to a single example of an EU company getting fined under DMA. After all, you said it was applied equally so it should be easy :)
359.
by 0xy 2y ago
DMA is applied equally, you say. How interesting! Can you link me to the examples of the EU going after EU companies for DMA violations? I couldn't find a single one. Not a single case, ever. The EU wanted to fine Google $35,000,000,00
360.
by 0xy 2y ago
DMA is. GDPR is. Both are applied principally against competitors using arbitrary fines invented by the EU. No compliance guidance is given, because the laws are inherently vague.

More ›