- 中国制造2025 aka MIC 2025
https://jamestown.org/civil-military-fusion-and-the-plas-pur...
Now read, since you clearly haven't.
- I don't think it's as black and white as you suggest.
He just wrote about Japan's implementation of a similar set of laws rather favourably - the theme is that Japan's implementation looks very much like a genuine attempt at protecting users and benefitting end users and developers.
While I don't agree with what a lot of what Gruber has to say. A point I do agree with is that the DMA is being sold (by Margrethe Vestager, Thierry Breton and Ursula von der Leyer) as a set of consumer protections, when it's plainly not that, and in some clear ways does the opposite.
There's also persistent transparency questions like why the EU has excessive meetings with Spotify, or why there is not a "music" gatekeeper in the DMA, or the requirement to easily move music libraries between music services - things that would actually help consumers and prevent genuine lock in.
(Note this isn't to excuse the behaviour of big tech.)
- I keep an unofficial record of instances where police and similar authorities have abused their access to these types of systems. The list is long. It's almost exclusively men stalking ex-partners or attractive women they don't know, but have seen in public.
What's frightening is it's not rare, it actually happens constantly, and this is just within the systems which have a high level of internal logging/user-tracking.
So now with Flock and data brokers we have authorities having access to information that was originally held behind a judge's signature. Often with little oversight, and frequently for unofficial, abusive purposes.
This reality also ties back to the discussion about providing the "good guys" encryption backdoors. The reality is that there are no "good guys", everyone exists in shades of grey, and I dare say there are people in forces whom are attracted to the power the role provides, rather than any desire for public service.
In conclusion it's a fundamental design flaw to rely on the operator being a "good guy", and that's before we get into the problem of leaks, bugs, and flaws in the security model, or in this case: complete open access to the public web - laughable, farcical, and horrifying.
- that's comically* naive, and plainly false - China itself has already stated their objectives.
* Actually, wilfully naive would be a better fit.
- If they want to position themselves with a point of difference from competitors, they could provide a settings list of AI features with check boxes for each.
This would tap into the insight that not everyone dislikes the same AI features. For many AI isn't a dirty word, but rather they've seen plenty of examples where it's simply annoying or over-taxing resources.
For example some like AI to build a quick reference summary from a set of web results, but don’t want a full agenic-style AI to extend beyond that.
This could potentially entice users not to throw the baby out with the bathwater, and maybe even make a few converts.
- One function of R&D involves how to manufacture things cheaply, quickly + en masse.
Those efficiencies that started with consumer drones now serve drones used in war. DJI being used at the start of the war is the evidence of that.
Continuation of that investment in R&D will also lead to new technologies: such as quieter drones, drones that can carry more, go further, and be controlled through difficult to counter means.
It's blithely short sighted to think that the technology is already at its maximum, or that these concepts are disconnected from each other. It's a type of naive thinking that people on the internet do to rationalise a false sense of security.
Also: to address another set of comments in this thread - China aren't looking at EUV so they can break into the graphics cards market or lower the price of RAM. Absolute utter numpties.
- Which then goes on to be repurposed into weapons of war.
Something to think about if considering the purchase of a DJI drone.
- It's easy to overlook the importance in outlining a process for evaluating each rung in the ladder.
Adding this nuance to the question serves to invite deeper thought and avoid assigning a motivation-based rating (like when you give the Uber driver 5 stars when what you felt was actually just "satisfactory").
A more basic rating question can invite other kinds of influence, such as a motivation in how they'd like their life to be perceived rather than how they genuinely feel it to be.
In surveys with less nuance the data tends to correlate around the extremes.
- The deals for this type of product positioning occur quite high up in the chain.
To give an example Yum! brands (KFC, Pizza Hut, Taco Bell, etc) was formed as a subsidiary of PepsiCo. Although PepsiCo has divested from Yum, their pre-existing relationship is why these restaurants only serve Pepsi's soft drinks.
Deal-making is also why you see patterns like this emerge in other places such as convenience stores that only sell beverages from the Coca-cola company (i.e. higher volume sales from just one supplier yields a better discount than splitting sales across multiple suppliers). It's relatively rarer to see more than one beverage supplier at a restaurant, club or convenience outlet.
- Yes I agree, and this would be the ideal and most efficient outcome, and it should be repeated: an EU-wide common standard, which can then be optionally adopted by businesses in each member state alongside not forbidding existing invoicing methods.
In this scenario we can anticipate that business practices will shift to the common standard over time, and that would include the accounting software used by new businesses: resulting in a phased conversion with minimal disruptions to running a business.
- It sounds like the gift card # is included as part of a police investigation (as you already know scams often use gift cards as payment) - which would explain Apple's inability to help you or provide information (because they would be required by the state not to.)
You should approach a lawyer to petition Apple and the Tasmanian police on your behalf.
- Yeah it seems odd, and if Apple won't tell him or do anything, it might be because they can't: such as circumstances of an active police investigation.
We are obviously not going to get a fuller idea about this situation from a blog post, and while I won't assume that the author has done anything wrong, there have been similar stories in the past where the affected individual was deliberately withholding the whole, much more illegal, story.
Presuming his innocence: What could have happened here is that the gift card he's purchased has been marked as part of a scam operation. Apple gift cards are frequently used for "tax bill" and "police fine" scams in Australia (where they are sold there is often signage informing people of that.) So potentially this person is accidentally roped into that.
Also it's not entirely unheard of to purchase gift cards for long-time users (who would normally just use their linked credit card), as the cards are often sold in the retail space with a 10% discount, or can be redeemed as rewards through points/loyalty schemes.
With all that said, at this point if he's not getting anywhere, he should approach a lawyer, as they'd be able to petition on his behalf (whether that is to Apple or to the state of Tasmania.)
- Other major countries that have adopted eInvoicing have kept it optional for a few reasons:
- It's a barrier for small businesses, or those which seldomly invoice, such as craft and hobby businesses (particularly remote online businesses).
- Large companies see eInvoicing as a cost saving method and force it upon their vendors. This reduces the need to make it mandatory and provides a financial incentive for companies to adopt eInvoicing (i.e. more carrot, less stick.)
The EU has a solid trend of finding ways to self-harm when introducing reforms. This self-harm story segue's into how the EU is considering implementing an Australian-style social media restriction for children:
Quote from abc.net.au below:
European Commission president Ursula von der Leyen told the audience she had been "inspired" by Australia's "bold" move to introduce the ban.
"As a mother of seven children and grandmother of five, I share their view," she said.
The European Parliament has since passed a non-legislative report that would set a minimum age of 16 for social media, while allowing those aged 13 to 15 with parental consent.
-- end quote --
Here the EU is walking down the path of another bad implementation.
Limiting the age for social media only works if it's mandatory for all children, otherwise kids will just pester their parents for access. In the EU's plan the parents become the "bad guy" in that arrangement, the home becomes the battleground for obtaining access to social media.
The EU's plan also means that social media remains relevant for young people, where access may be needed for arranging social activities and sports, and those which don't have it are either inconvenienced or miss out. Meanwhile the Australian implementation removes that purpose as no kids are allowed on the platform, thus there are no "haves" and "have nots" kids.
Finally, and probably most importantly, advertisers, data brokers, and bad actors will still continue to target children through social media networks, since they will still be there in useful numbers.
- It's odd to celebrate having the key sanctions unwound.
Before this ruling:
1. Apple were prohibited from charging any fee for external/referral purchases. Now this is once again allowed and the district court will work with all parties to develop a reasonable commission.
2. External links were permitted to dominate over IAP options. Now they must have equal size, prominence and quantity.
3. Apple were prevented from showing any kind of exit screen, that is now restored (but it can't be a scare screen).
4. Apple were barred from preventing certain developers/app classes from using external links (such as those enrolled in the News or Video Partner Programs) those are now reversed and Apple can once again prevent them.
Epic/Tim Sweeney are trying to spin these recent losses as a win. It's the old marketing playbook of hoping no one reads the fine print.
- There are overwhelming dichotomous portrayals in this debate which gives me pause because there are entities who benefit from both sides of this debate, but neither would benefit with a sensible privacy-preserving solution.
So instead of advocating for those sensible and workable solutions, the discussions are always centred on either blocking any attempt at reform while hyperventilating about vague authoritarianism or a similarly vague need to protect the innocent.
Meanwhile in the world of smartphone data providers, social media networks, and the meta/googles of the world: they all know your personal information and identity up to the wazoo - and have far more information on every one of you than what is possessed by your own governments (well except for the governments that are also buying up that data.)
So let me be clear, the gate is open, the horse has bolted - recapturing your privacy is where attention should be focused in this debate... even if it's bad for shareholders.
- I wonder if this will weaken Disney's suit against Midjourney.
A tenant of seeking damages in a copyright complaint is the loss of control over how the intellectual property is used, and the potential damage done to the intellectual property by those who are not the rights holder. However this agreement demonstrates that they're not only willing to give up control (and allow content to be created without their vetting), but that they'd even financially contribute the acceleration of such through a very large initial investment with a carve out to contribute even more down the road.
I was aiming to write a counterpoint here, but so far many are quickly debunked by Disney being the company that is the financial backer of the agreement.
- I opened this article expecting to read that OpenAI was somehow delivering cash or in-kind payment to Disney as a means of appeasing the copyright beast.
Colour me surprised to see that it's Disney that are handing out the cash in this arrangement.
However with further reading the answer seems clearer: Disney will certainly be using OpenAI's video technology to reduce their production costs, and for the amount of content Disney create this agreement seems mutually beneficial.
- I have seen a swift uptick in "Australians" negatively posting on social media networks about the new restriction.
Notably the central theme presented by these same "Australians" was that there should be no changes, limits or restrictions to the types of information collected by social media companies, or how they handle such personal information, rather that everything should be exactly as it was... how very convenient.
Some were even so incensed about their personal privacy that they wrote how much they disagree with having to share their SSN with online platforms.
As many of you would already know, mentioning a "SSN" is a give away that the "Australians" are not genuine people. These accounts are perpetuating the lie that Australians must provide a government identity to access these services. While an ID can be used, it's not mandatory and is actually one of the less convenient options, in comparison to 3rd party verification or a face photo.
Seems a bit of a disingenuous argument to complain about taking a photo of one's face for verification, but having no qualms about using the social media network to post photos of oneself for public viewing.
- My first experience of copilot was learning that my Microsoft Office subscription was increasing in price.
Then I dug a little deeper and saw that I could exclude it and go back to my old price.
For what I do with office, I have no use for copilot so you can guess what I did.
An unfortunate reality that software makers need to grasp is that a lot of people don’t use their software properly to begin with, meaning the addition of AI doesn’t push the needle - it’s just yet another “time saving feature” that the user won’t touch.
Great, now let's stack what you've written in both of your comments directly against what Gruber has written, and not what an imaginary strawman wrote.
You wrote:
1. I have no doubt that Gruber will find reasons why the EU is bad and regulation is bad.
2. The EU has already gone through the hard work of drafting the law, working with a non-cooperative Apple, and then actually seeing it implemented and the practical issues that arise.
3. Most of his description of what Japan does better is simply “mutual respect”.
Addressing point 1 (again):
I wrote words to the effect of (they're just above): Gruber's writing is not as black and white as you assert and then I made reference to the Japan regulation article as an example where Gruber again makes nuanced arguments towards regulated changes.
That article does not make a blanket statement that regulation is bad, and Gruber points to a long-standing idea that he has which neither the EU nor Japan have regulated, which he believes should be. He's also stated (repeatedly) that he's in favour of link-outs and other commonly requested changes to the app store terms, and believe's Apple are too slow to change on these.
So does Gruber believe all regulation is bad as you have asserted: no. His views are demonstrably in favour of well-minded regulation.
Addressing point 2: The belief that the EU bears the brunt of regulation teething, and that's why it goes well in other regions.
Maybe you skipped the part where Gruber points to a 2021 regulation requirement from Japan, which Apple in fact did not provide resistance to, but worked with the regulatory authority to achieve their goal - then Schiller himself (the overseer of the App store at the time) came out and spoke in public with supportive language. That is an example Gruber provided, however there are plenty more examples of the app store changing policies long before the EU took notice. The EU gets all the attention here because they seem to be uniquely incapable of foreseeing unintended consequences.
So is the EU's leading the source of friction. No and they're not even first in many respects.
Addressing point 3: Gruber makes only immaterial "mutual respect" comparisons between DMA/MSCA.
I'm guessing you skimmed this bit too - Gruber talks at length to MSCA and DMA's approach to regulation, stating that MSCA's changes prioritise privacy and security in contrast to the DMA, and practical aspects such as user safety (that's a wee bit more than "mutual respect"). Secondly that users are not presented with onerous choice screens (see end note 1) which is making reference to the EU's requirement that browser selection screens must be repeatedly shown when the user's default browser is Safari (but not if it's any other browser), Japan doesn't take this approach to a browser selection screen.
So is it true that Gruber makes immaterial comparisons between the two: again no.