The biggest problem with Europe is the lack of innovation. But that was not an issue before.
Before the 2000s, Europe was very very strong in telecom (Ericsson, Nokia, Siemens, Alcatel), industrial technology, the auto industry, mobile phones, semiconductors, and enterprise software (SAP, Baan, Business Objects, Dassault Systèmes, sage). Europe was definitely much less dependent on U.S. technology back then. In some area I would say it was the other way around.
But Europe's dependence on U.S. technology has accelerated dramatically over the last 10-15 years.
I'm really not sure why. Regulation and bureaucracy did not get worse. And Europe even created the EU, which provided a better "single market" (better than before the 2000s).
I would love to hear some opinions on what changed.
I am trying to say that they cannot claim that this deal will “threaten our journalistic independence”. It is just kinda funny (and sad) that they claim that while only 32% of U.S. adults said they trust The New York Times as a source of news.
Citizen's United was the nail in the coffin for honest journalism, because it sold out to those with the largest wallets. If you truly want truth in journalism support independent journalists financially, and with your attention. Ignore corporate media.
To me, the rules on how large a media conglomerate could get being changed in favor of allowing the conglomerate to grow even larger did some heavy lifting. Journalism publishers no longer have to compete since their all owned by the same limited number of owners.
I do not know if xcancel is going to survive this :(
As far as I understand, people use XCancel because they do not like X (and Elon) so do not want to give money or traffic to X. But they still want to read and share content posted there.
The added value of XCancel is they are not owned by Elon Musk.
Getting around Twitter's blocking of non-logged-in accounts predates Musk's purchase of Twitter. I don't know the specifics of XCancel, but the niche existed beforehand.
Selling backup for data that is stored in the cloud (whether selling solution as a provider or selling any solution (even free one) internally to your team), is one of the hardest things in the world.
The energy efficient tires have much longer wet braking distance. And they last less (for similar priced tires).
Anyway, saying how it will save money is not right way how to promote this (it is really hard to predict all 2nd order effects this might cause - including increase of accidents, noise pollution, market forces (less choice), and similar).
EVs have low center of gravity, but their low rolling resistance tires have less lateral grip and contributed to them failing the moose test.
Context: a car magazine simulates a car swerving around a fatal obstacle in lane and then quickly getting back to their lane to avoid a head-on collision. Taller, narrower cars tip over; poor suspension/ESC rip off tires from their rims (debeading); slippery tires send it skidding. Its a great rabbit hole in Youtube.
> energy efficient tires have much longer wet braking distance
This is a labelling law, not a "You can't buy the bumpy tires" law.
This improves the quality of my choice here, because I already look for the little snowflake on tires when buying them for the 3 weekends I drive in the snow.
I'd be revolting too if they banned all season tires over this, because I am not swapping winter tires for thanksgiving weekend, Xmas and ski week.
Also efficient tires don't mean driving becomes boring, a GT86 is on skinnies and that makes it more fun at 35mph in a tight corner than a BMW with pilot sports.
I think they're only calling out cost, because the skinny tires cost more money overall, but there is a net payoff period on bills.
> This is a labelling law, not a "You can't buy the bumpy tires" law.
No, the labeling part seems to be mostly secondary:
FTA
"designed to ensure that replacement tires sold in the state are at least as energy efficient, on average, as tires sold in the state as original equipment"
> Reducing the rolling resistance of a tire isn’t technically that difficult, said Fadie. Incorporating more silica, for example, improves not only efficiency but traction as well. Rubber chemistry and tread designs can also lead to gains
and the quoted opposition never mentions this fact either, which you'd think they would.
Let’s do other way. If it is true that energy efficient tiers will save money then there will no need to have a law. We could do just some marketing campaign and people will be: aha I love money so let’s save money.
But it is not about saving but it is about environment. And this where I get a little weary about: if they are willing to stretch truths here where else are they doing that. Requiring ID to browse internet? Flock cameras?
Of course they will use left vs right argument but I doubt this is all about saving environment.
This. My wife and I both thought the low-rolling-resistance tires on our hybrids felt very unsafe in the rain. My Audi A3-etron's tires were also by far the least durable tires I have had on a car in my 40+ years of driving. I prematurely replaced or repaire more tires on that car in 8 years than on all the other cars I've had put together.
I eventually switched to a midsize truck, because I need to do some light towing sometimes, and my first thought was, it feels so much safer in the rain.
Once you control for tread (which you're already mostly doing by restricting the comparison to run of the mill road tires) most of how it feels in the rain comes down to tire pressure and shape of contact patch.
I had some Michelin Energy Savers on my Chevy Volt for a while. Got 25k miles out of them before they were toast. They were awful, noisy, no grip, and I didn't realize how bad they were until I got some much better tires.
2. There are many other ways to help salmon and their habitat. If the goal is to help them, California’s massive budget could be applied in many more targeted and effective ways to helping the fish.
3. There’s no evidence that this specific piece of regulation will help salmon in any way.
The main problem and challenge with all these regulations is enforcement. How are they actually going to enforce them?
The U.S. already has very strict rules against unsolicited calls, yet I still get around 20 spam calls a day saying things like "press 2 to be connected" or offering some "$64K loan."
At the same time, I have not received a single unsolicited call from a reputable company.
The same is true for text messages. In 2023, the U.S. introduced stricter regulations, and companies like Twilio responded with very strict anti-spam rules. The rules are now so restrictive that we are forced to stopped using Twilio for text important notification to our my own team.
Yet I still receive dozens of spam text messages every week.
So the question is whether the regulations can actually be enforced against the people who are already ignoring them.
> I have not received a single unsolicited call from a reputable company.
Yet you receive 20 spam calls a day through a known company, namely your phone provider. The way to solve this is to forcibly draft the providers into this; for example: any time you receive a spam call, you can dial a special *# number after hanging up. This message will have the effect of crediting $5 on your next phone bill, and allows the provider to recoup that loss from the originating provider, etc, all the way to the caller itself. The first company in the chain not cooperating in this scheme is out $5 per spam call through their network.
Of course, something like this needs the usual protection against abuse, but that's equally manageable.
The backtrack chain of accountability has to apply to each telco transiting a given call. We can argue about how much that penalty should be (I'd prefer a heftier one), and details over how to address abuse and whatnot.
California has (recently?) introduced a bonding requirement of telemarketers. I'd like to see a far stiffer bonding obligation to telecoms providers, probably in the deca-to-mega millions amounts.
As that's bonding, the rate is based on risk (business assessment plus history), and would likely be a small fraction of the total amount for legitimate providers, but would be substantial for bad-actors, and the Surety (bond provider) would be strongly incentivised to limit their risk through bad behaviour on the part of the Principal (bonded entity).
reply