The EU's nuclear deterrent is weak. Is France committed to defend the rest of Europe with its nukes? And the UK (while a NATO member) is not a member of the EU anymore.
Don't confuse the "EU" with "Europe". One is a trade and law union, the other is a continent of countries. Europe isn't a unanimous entity either, its a big pile of countries with independent politics.
The nuclear deterrent is just as strong as it needs to be. If nuke strikes come, we're all dead regardless if we have 5 or 500 bombs to drop on Moscow.
And again, this is irrelevant to abusive authority on technology. If "Europe" wasn't "dependent on US defence" would they send a destroyer fleet to the US cost as a retaliation?
The US is using its tech companies to pressure foreign democratic allied countries over political issues. This is undermining the free trade that allowed these companies to exist in the fireplace.
Continued moves in this direction will just push nationalistic ideas in European nations to cut out US influence entirely.
There are advantages to having your stuff within your own country's jurisdiction. Only one legal system, and one you already live with, controls this stuff. its easier to go to court. Citizens have more rights than non-citizens in most places.
AI is not overhyped. It's like saying going to the moon is overhyped.
First of all this AI stuff is next level. It's as great, if not greater than going to space or going to the moon.
Second the rate at which is improving makes it such that the hype is relevant and realistic.
I think what's throwing people off are two things. First people are just over exposed to AI. So the overexposure is causing people to feel AI is boring and useless slop. Investments are heavy into AI but the people who throw that money around are a minority, overall the general public is actually UNDER hyping AI. Look at everyone on this thread. Everyone and I mean Everyone isn't overly optimistic about AI. instead the irony is... Everyone and I mean everyone again strangely thinks the world is overhyped about AI and they are wrong. This thread and practically every thread on HN is a microcosm of the world and the sentiment is decidedly against AI. Think about it like this, if Elon Musk invented a car that cost 1$ and this car could travel at FTL speeds to anywhere in the universe, than interstellar travel will be routine and boring within a year. People will call it overhyped.
Second the investment and money spent on AI is definitely overhyped. Right? Think about it. If we quantify the utility and achievement of what AI can currently do and what it's projected to achieve the math works out. If you quantify the profitability of AI the math suddenly doesn't work out.
Seems like an apt comparison; it was a massive money sink and a regular person gained absolutely nothing from the moon landing, it's just the big organization (NASA, US government) that got the bragging rights.
>Somewhere along the way, the cool kids came up with the idea that GUIs are bad, and everything needs to go through the command line.
It's important for people to feel like "hackers" that is the primary reason why command line sort of exploded among devs. Most devs will never admit this... they may not even realize it, but I think this is the main reason it went big.
The irony is that the very thing that makes devs feel like "hackers" is the very thing that's enabling agentic AI and making developers get all resistant because they're feeling dumber.
If it happened in dozens of labs… how the fuck does big pharma hold patents on certain drugs? The existence of a patent means the drug was developed and patented by one entity.
If a molecule, synthesis path, or mechanism has already been disclosed in the literature by multiple labs, then that is public prior art and it cannot be patented.
Therefore, If there were dozens of other researchers coming up with the same drug the patent is legally invalid.
