It will mean little if the infrastructure is still dependent on volatile partners (and I'm bundling allies and adversaries in this).
The core problem is Europe has been very successful betting and building upon though choices made by others (eg. Cheap manufacture in China, cheap energy in Russia, cheap defense/capital from US, cheap manpower/migrants from developing countries...).
Europe from its high ground flaunts this model to the whole world ("look at our development metrics! Our social spending") while completely ignoring the sustainability and the costs bore by others and neglecting its own responsibilities.
And now everything is crashing down simultaneously.
You say this like you are unaware of how the US has utilizied cheap manufacturing in China, relied on imported manpower from both developed and developing countries as well as, until recently, been a net importer of energy from other nations.
plenty of software business rely on contractors dont they? im sure even pre-acquisition vimeo likely used contractors on many roles some even in "engineering" roles.
the idea that software is never done is a double edge sword: yes, its great to have a long term vision that keeps evolving and motivating people to continue to push boundaries. but it also creates this idea that "done" state is not possible or even desirable.
plenty of human (economic) activity is just operating, or maintaining. maybe some people who built products are happy to continue operating and operating it. not everyone, and certainly it would be hard to expecy society to guarantee employment under any circunstances.
i have never seen labor laws that prohibits lay off under any circunstances. some make it more onerous and/or more beneficial conditiona to employees than others. but certainly is it possible (and likely) that vimeo lay offs have been lawfull and even beneficial for many employees. i certainly know plenty of people who explicitly stick around "mature" organizations waiting for the fat check of layoff
So, it is always going to be a cat and mouse game. As long as the rules are clear let the game begin. Just dont try to tilt the game in your favor by using legal threats (ie Chat control and alike).
Anyone can try to break encryption, why can't the police force? But dont say others arent allowed to use malware/Spyware - or malware/spyware countermeasures - if you are using it yourself.
You already have (theoretical) access to state resources. You dont need more help
I'm not sure what your point is. Is it about the lunches being specifically healthy?
A rice bowl at Chipotle, for example, is not unhealthy (rice, beans, meat, vegetables). Plenty of restaurant food in the US is perfectly healthy (or, you can look at nutrition facts to know if it is). And if I can take a single US portion size and split it into two lunches that are Japanese-sized portions, then maybe we're getting the same amount food per dollar.
And on the "healthy" point: The article doesn't discuss nutrition facts at all or refer to any specific meals or dishes.
They link to an article concerning the price of Japanese bowls, that mentions "a regular-sized bowl of rice with beef from Japanese fast food chain Yoshinoya, which costs around 468 yen (S$4.25)." I don't know Japanese so it's hard for me to find nutrition information about that particular dish, but I suspect that a beef bowl is high in saturated fat, cholesterol, and sodium (because most stir-fried beef is higher in these things). Is that healthy? Japan as a country has higher sodium intake than the US. Is that healthy? And so on. I suspect a big factor of the "health" of these lunches is that portion sizes are just smaller than in the US (but I have no data).
I think just statistics about how many people are overweight and obese in both countries can already paint a picture that probably japanese food is more healthy. And optimizing for how many calories you can get for $1 is probably also not the best metric to aim for.
Sort of for sake of argument: National obesity statistics don’t necessarily imply anything about the healthiness of the food, nor specifically about the healthiness of $4 lunches that the article discusses. If the Japanese eat smaller portions and are less sedentary, they could still be less obese regardless of differences in the nutritional content of these $4 lunches. (And I think they ARE less sedentary and DO eat smaller portions.)
I’m not advocating for anything (certainly not optimizing for calories per dollar).
My point is just that the article has no data. It says a Japanese lunch is cheap and a US lunch is expensive and doesn’t consider what you actually get for the money. It assumes the US lunch is a worse deal, but I suspect it’s really not if you adjust the price for the amount of food.
The "internet" is different things to different people. For the masses: if you take down the datacenters - or more easily coerce the leadership of the magnificent 7 you effectively turn of the internet for most people
The core problem is Europe has been very successful betting and building upon though choices made by others (eg. Cheap manufacture in China, cheap energy in Russia, cheap defense/capital from US, cheap manpower/migrants from developing countries...).
Europe from its high ground flaunts this model to the whole world ("look at our development metrics! Our social spending") while completely ignoring the sustainability and the costs bore by others and neglecting its own responsibilities.
And now everything is crashing down simultaneously.
reply