I'm not the previous user, but I imagine that weeks of investment might be a commitment one does not have.
I have implemented an interpreter for a very basic stack-based language (you can imagine it being one of the simplest interpreters you can have) and it took me a lot of time and effort to have something solid and functional.
Thus I can absolutely relate to the idea of having an LLM who's seen many interpreters lay out the ground for you and make you play as quickly as possible with your ideas while procrastinating delving in details till necessary.
Many great design patterns have come from OOP and have found their home in functional languages or libraries.
Dependency injection has to be the most successful one, but there's at least another dozen good ideas that came from OO world and has been found to be solid.
What has rarely proven to be a good idea instead is inheritance at behavior level. It's fine for interfaces, but that's it. Same for stateful classes, beyond simple data containers like refs.
You can even have classes in functional programming word, it's irrelevant, it's an implementation detail, what matters is that your computations are pure, and side effects are implemented in an encoded form that can be combined in a pure way (an IO or Effect data type works, but so can a simple lazy function encoding).
Nah, I’ll agree with parent: they’re objectively bad. They turn what could be IPC into network calls, and because everything uses frameworks and ORMs, it’s all slow as hell.
“We can move faster” (but at the cost of our product being slower).
I keep seeing this implication that microservices somehow allow teams to move faster, but every company I've seen them at has moved at a snails pace mostly because of the clusterfuck of microservices. What would've been a trivial change in a monolith became a cross-team nightmare.
Because, as I said in a previous post, they are adopted as a technical rather than organizational solution. Which means that either these organizations adopted the wrong technological solution for their problem without really understanding it, or that they should've tackled their organizational issues instead which could've been unrelated from microservices being the actual solution.
Gonna give you an example.
Dazn, the european sports streaming service unicorn, adopted both microservices and microfrontends as an organizational solution: they had multiple teams across different offices in the world, and this posed a lot of organizational strains.
There's a series of talks (he mostly focuses on micro frontends, but the concepts are the same) on Youtube from Luca Mezzalira (principal serverless engineer at AWS, previous chief architect of Dazn) on the topic, and he does *not* shy away from the idea of micro services and micro frontends being a subpar technical solution more often than not.
But sure, if you adapt micro services because you don't know what you're doing and you're not understanding the engineering difficulties, then you're shooting yourself in the foot and I've seen the very same phenomenon you describe: short-term velocity gains with long term penalties.
Also effect-ts in TypeScript world, which is by far the most popular effect system around (quite sure it has overtaken Scala's ZIO from which it is inspired).
The ecosystem is massive.
Cons: TypeScript is a great type system but requires some investment to get the best out of it, it's also very verbose.
Pros: you have access to the entirety of the TypeScript ecosystem.
I'm not understanding, as an European who's been part of multiple startups how's that supposed to boost growth.
There's literally 0 startups I've been part of where data protection laws or even the infamous cookie banners have been anywhere near relevant (unless your business was literally profiling).
In fact the actors that most opposed those laws have always been non Europeans.
Sure, there is an attached cost in having your terms reviewed by a proper lawyer and documenting the entire list of cookie providers, but that's basically where it ends. It's really minimal effort and cost, we talking in the low single digits for the review, and few hours of engineering time.
The biggest issues in European growth are others:
- focus on being an export economy while neglecting the internal market.
- bureaucracy to fight at European level so we still don't have a real unified market, neither in physical goods (our economy's backbone) nor services which doesn't allow national startups to scale at European level
- very conservative and risk-adverse mentality. Young people in college can't wait to graduate and find the best paying lowest effort stable job. That's not a problem if it involves a majority of graduates, I imagine all world is like that, but you do have an immense problem if you have 1% or 3% or 10% of wannabe entrepreneurs.
I would go farther. Privacy laws seem like an excellent way to tighten the internal European market and develop homegrown competitors, which (one might argue) Europe really needs. If Europe is loosening up those laws, does that help Europe? Or does it help Meta and Google and Microsoft?
Europe has a shitload of homegrown competitors. The problem is that users here in Europe either goes for a national service or for an US service. They don't look up what their EU neighbor has to offer. In fact, most don't bother translating their services to appeal to the entire EU market.
If you live in country X, you will only ever learn about services from country X or from the US. No one here knows what goes on in neighboring countries.
It's easy to think the EU is like the USA, but it's not, it is still separate sovereign countries with their own language and culture.
I think there's something like 24 national languages in the EU. I can hardly blame hetzner for not translating their services to say polish and think it's entirely the wrong approach anyway.
It's really true language is a big barrier but honestly the solution cannot be for every single company to offer services in 20 languages. It can't be. English must be adopted.
I cringe when I read this. Why not German? There are more native German speakers than any other language in the EU. Also, in the age of LLMs, translating (on a best effort basis) to (at least) 24 different languages is trivial.
Now it should be clear why one is better than the other. The shared language of most is English, so you have the least amount of "extra learning" required.
Also, the number for German is generous in that it includes people that speak wildly "incompatible" dialects and accents. While people in Bavaria technically speak "German" and having them talk to other people that speak "German" (with various dialects) is easier than asking either to speak English as their primary language, that doesn't really solve the problem of even intra-German language rivalry.
Of course one thing will unite Bavarian and Saxon and Swiss and Austrian German and other highly accented/dialectic German speakers: They'd rather speak "German" (and deal with weird pronunciation/words) than English as an official language ;)
Are there more distinct markets in the EU/EEC where adopting german would give you a quantifiable economic and/or competitive advantage over adopting english?
Why work work with native language rather than spoken? According to wikipedia less than 20% of the EU is a native German speaker while 47% speak English. When talking about technical people who may be looking into something like Hetzner it is probably higher than 47%.
I never really looked at it that way, but I think you're right.
Although, non-European-owned companies aren't necessarily incentivized to look towards European companies.
Looking towards your European neighbors mostly comes down to logistical situations. In those sectors, multilingual services are more common.
Nations don’t outsource critical national security industries even though economists might say that’s more efficient. The question is whether they should outsource critical tech infrastructure to huge quasi-monopolistic US firms that can turn it off or abuse European data at will. I don’t have the answer to that question, but I have to imagine it’s a worthwhile debate. The data we have cuts both ways: China applied protectionist policies to its own Internet companies, and it’s hard to argue that this has been economically devastating for them.
>China applied protectionist policies to its own Internet companies, and it’s hard to argue that this has been economically devastating for them.
China has 1.4 billion people in one country while the combined population of Europe is around half of that, so that's one difference.
But, yes, both US and Chinese technology companies would likely be better off than they are now without China's protectionism and authoritarianism. To the Chinese state, protecting Chinese citizens from harmful things (like knowing full details about atrocities perpetrated by their government, or organizing to criticize the government) outweighs other concerns.
Define "better off". Companies like Meta and Google are enormous behemoths that make their money through advertising. One advantage of their size is that they have lower costs, but a greater advantage is that they have much larger market power: they can purchase competitors and demand higher rents for advertising space. Is society genuinely better off from this kind of concentrated market advantage? One might argue that there are different kinds of 'efficiency' at play here, and not all of them are in society's interest.
This would allow direct, constant competition between companies like Meta/Google and their Chinese counterparts. Americans could choose to use Chinese providers when they're outcompeting the American behemoths, and vice versa. We see that China's companies are very competitive and innovative. Both American and Chinese citizens might be better off if they all could freely choose from different global options.
But that's not at all how things have worked out, even here within the US. Waze does not compete with Google Maps. WhatsApp and Instagram do compete with Facebook, each of these companies were simply acquired. We've learned that new social media companies have a very hard time spinning up the network effects required to make them prominent, and in the rare cases they do, they quickly get bought out or their products cloned by incumbents. There's an excellent chance this would have happened in China without state intervention.
The most prominent recent exception to this rule is TikTok, which spun out of an already-successful Chinese tech company. Its owners resisted acquisition until legislation forced their hand.
But the US could have benefitted from China's social media and commerce platforms and China could have benefitted from the US's. That's my point.
I am no economist or even that economics-knowledgeable and maybe I'm wrong and maybe China's protectionism is better somehow, but from everything I know or at least from every trope and meme I've ingested, free global commerce eventually leads to better outcomes for all parties.
China is a decade ahead of the rest of the world in different kind of use cases (think their super apps or payments).
TikTok is the most popular social media app out there, and it's chinese.
They are also tremendously competitive in AI despite all the limitations they encounter.
Honestly I think that the last century should be a clear statement that protectionism, sanctions and closeness is a failure whose bills are paid by tax payers.
We've been bailing out and protecting non competitive industries (which have further incentives *not* to invest due to protectionism they benefit from) for decades.
When Trump 1 put high taxes on dishwashers and house appliances it hasn't really pushed US companies to do better, it just allowed them to raise the prices and do very little.
But the fact that some countries play dirty (see China and their industrial espionage and lack of respect of patents and intellectual property), while others are obsessed with being #1 even if it means pursuing that via bullying methods have pushed us in this very negative scenario I don't see how can we leave us behind unless we get a new generation of brighter leaders.
Sadly, that's not how you win consensus and elections today.
> But, yes, both US and Chinese technology companies would likely be better off than they are now without China's protectionism and authoritarianism.
How would china be better off? All their tech companies would have been bought out by larger foreign tech companies. Kinda like what happened to many european tech companies.
> To the Chinese state, protecting Chinese citizens from harmful things (like knowing full details about atrocities perpetrated by their government, or organizing to criticize the government) outweighs other concerns.
Yeah that's what the chinese state is worried about /s. Not the neverending misinformation, disinformation and propaganda directed against it.. When china does it, it's "authoritarianism". When "the west" does it, it's fighting against misinformation.
"Economists" also love free trade, and we have learned in the last 10 years that it has become harmful to people at middle class and below. Even if GDP does grow, the benefits are not distributed evenly.
While I agree with you 100%, I think most modern economists fail to account for bad actors.
If a situation was "China is producing X and having its taxpayers subsidize cars, steel, etc" then it would be their loss and our advantage. We get great products they get pieces of paper. I couldn't care less.
But considering that the real goal of those bad actors is to annihilate the competition and then pull the rug this is ultimately a bad idea.
Especially when those bad actors, at the same time, do their best at playing dirty and ignoring intellectual property.
I couldn't care less if Europe didn't have a shipping industry, in fact protectionism of it has failed miserably in Europe, and made our yards less, not more competitive. So yes, in that world I agree.
But in a world where an elected (or unelected) government, can suddenly blackmail you or create such an immense strain on your economy (as Russia did with Europe) this is not really like that. And suddenly you realize you should've paid way more, but invested way earlier in diversifying energy-wise.
In an ideal market I'd be 100% with you, in the real world, it's really neither black nor white.
Something that is good for a country as a whole isn't necessarily good for the economy. On the flip side, being good for the economy isn't necessarily good for the population of a country.
Secondly it forces European companies to all have a 'USP' for high privacy which is useful when selling abroad as well. Becoming a byword for privacy and therefore trust/security is absolutely not a bad thing and comes at very low cost.
Europe has a lot of problems that result in low ambition and growth, privacy law isn't one of them.
IMO the biggest barrier is internal mobility. The European silicon valley never happened, because people don't want to move around. The biggest single barrier is language. I'm Irish, and young Irish people often emigrate (way more than in other countries). When I look at where my college classmates ended up, it's mostly America or the UK. We also emigrate a lot to Australia and New Zealand. In other words, we only really emigrate to English speaking countries.
Almost nobody goes to France, Germany, Spain, Italy, etc. The mainstays of the European economy. Let alone central or eastern Europe. But if you're a young talented engineer in the middle of nowhere usa, you can just easily move to the bay area without any issue. That cultural unity IMO is America's biggest strength, and the lack of it is Europe's biggest weakness.
Note: I've lived in Ireland, the Czech Republic, and France, so I know first hand how hard it is to move inside Europe, and I understand why people don't do it.
> bureaucracy to fight at European level so we still don't have a real unified market, neither in physical goods (our economy's backbone) nor services which doesn't allow national startups to scale at European level
I guess you have been part of software startups and you severely underestimate the bureaucracy that is involved in physical companies nowadays. Farmers, fishermen, factory-owners, and other small to medium size companies all have severe difficulties with ever increasing regulations. By itself the regulations are not always bad, but usually it takes way too long to get through the system which makes it hard to compete with, for example, China.
Here's my take, as a Romanian developer (since 2004ish).
One day I got a letter from the national authority regarding personal data where I was asked to reply to 15 questions regarding a personal project of mine, invoking the GDPR. The sanctions for not complying within 5 days was an incremental fine of 600 euros PER DAY, until I complied. This letter was directed to me as a natural person (not even my company).
Another story: I had a publishing website with some ads on it. The moment full GDPR went into effect, some years ago, revenue instantly dropped by 30% because the cookie banner I was using wasn't part of the approved european framework for cookie banners (they created an entire organization for this, called IAB). Most of the "approved" cookie banners are insanely overengineered nonsense and almost all of them cost a lot of money. And they kill your performance metrics. And when I finally gave in and implemented one of those, revenues dropped even more because I was losing readers who just quit without consenting at all.
Third and final anecdote: at one point I was contracted by a Romanian DTH television company who mostly operated with prepaid customers. According to GDPR, they were supposed to anonymize data they no longer needed, but because their clients were seasonal or less predictable, that turned out to be ridiculously hard. Their legal department, together with external contractors such as us ended up spending months to adjust their systems to conform to GDPR, and the result was their losing business and time, while being unable to properly serve older customers because they could no longer identify them.
So in my opinion, despite originally being well intended, GDPR opened a huge can of worms, created a lot of issues and made everyone's life harder on the internet, for no real benefit. On the contrary, the large companies could afford the legal counseling that they needed, but the smaller ones were hit hardest.
Did you consider running non-tracking ads? Of course not because even after the 30% drop, the spyware still pays more, right? But destroying websites with spyware is literally what the law is for - the people have voted to nuke your website from orbit.
Sure but the laws are probably relevant for the startups you _haven’t_ been a part of. The ones that never got started.
It’s funny you mention a lack of entrepreneurial spirit but then dismiss something that’s clearly a factor (not saying it’s the main factor but obviously it has some effect).
I have some side projects that I don’t really care about making money from but some people do use and it’s easier for me to just block all European users than worry about complying with all the random laws and regulations.
Of course it's easier to do a bad job of something or to give up and not do it. That has no bearing on whether or not doing it the right way is actually onerous.
Can you share the projects? In most cases it is very, very easy to comply with the *"random laws" (not that GDPR is much different from California's CPRA. Are you blocking Californian users too?)
This brings up the point that for some reason we're all terrified of the government. Maybe because we see the daily abuse from the USA? But if you accidentally violated the GDPR while in good faith trying to follow it, the most likely outcome is being ordered to fix it.
> I have some side projects that I don’t really care about making money from but some people do use and it’s easier for me to just block all European users than worry about complying with all the random laws and regulations.
GDPR fines scale based on annual turnover so blocking EU users on a non-commercial product is utterly pointless and just being mean.
I think (I'm an American so take with a grain of salt) even the "proper lawyer reviewing terms" part can be deferred quite a while by being conservative with PII (which you should be doing anyway) and using a service like iubenda to deal with terms and cookie warnings when you first start out.
European starts with a vowel in spelling, but actually phonerically begins with a consonant, /j/, so it doesn't trigger the "an" thing.
Similarly some spellings start with a consonant but have vowels (like acronyms, "an SSRI", the name of the letter S, "ess", begins with a vowel)
More to the point I agree with what you're saying. This seems like lazy attribution of cause that is so common in American business and politics. "Of course deregulation will boost growth!" Why? Because of religious beliefs about deregulation boosting growth.
> European starts with a vowel in spelling, but actually phonerically begins with a consonant
Ah makes sense.
In my head it's never "you"ropean, but "ew" uropean as I'm not a native english speaker and phonetically it's a consonant in english only. In greek, slavic languages, german or latin-derived it's always "ew".
The biggest hurdle Europe has to face is the cultural shift away from the post-soviet era of "Don't take work too seriously, enjoy life".
There is now a full generation of Europeans who grew up in with this mentality, looking down on Americans for their ridiculous work ethic and comparatively meager benefits.
But it's not sustainable, and the strain is already becoming obvious. Young Europeans will have to work longer and harder for less if they want to move Europe away from being totally dependent on American tech, American defense, and Chinese wares.
The data [0] begs to differ: in richer countries workers and fewer hours. The gap not shown here is working hours per capita (instead of worker), but I couldn’t find that data quickly.
Also, even if your claim were true, I wonder if joining the rate race of working harder is worth it.
I think your data agrees with OP, you're just misunderstanding it. Yes, richer countries work few hours and richer countries also see modest GDP growth.
Cambodia's GDP growth is over +5% YoY, whereas Switzerland (and the rest of Europe) has more modest GDP growth.
There is some "Work smart, not hard." facet to this, which requires an educated population.
The other fascet is developing countries exist in climates heavily impacted by global warming (look at flooding in VN or TH this year). They make 2 steps forward, and then 3 steps back when a monsoon takes out an entire town.
> Also, even if your claim were true, I wonder if joining the rate race of working harder is worth it.
Personally, employment makes my life interesting and rewarding. I love the puzzles (and compensation) that my employer provides. The rewards compound, but in career development and via investing the profits.
Unfortunately, I think the one area that isn't accounted for is child care. Societies (rich and poor) continue to extract time away from parenting, via cost of housing near job centers and dual-income families. Offering an extra month of vacation or 4-day work week isn't the same as 1 income household or the parents living 15 minutes from their job.
This is a natural consequence of being an industrially advanced country though.
A lot of GDP growth can come from establishing basic services like a functioning healthcare system, insurance apparatus and financial system. Of course, we can't building out infrastructure like roads, power, etc.
Especially construction can lead to substantial GDP growth, but once you have a basic set of infrastructure and housing in place, growth is much slower and consistent for very obvious reasons.
Once you have that stuff in place, getting consistent growth requires more advanced stuff.
The US is very much an outlier and attributing that soley to a difference in work ethic is ignorant at best.
> This is a natural consequence of being an industrially advanced country though.
Ok, but then compare the GDP of the USA vs Europe as millennials enter the workforce. Entering the 2008 crisis, USA and Europe were neck in neck. Now, the USA has left Europe in the dust.
Declaring the US an outlier seems like an odd choice... What country should you compare Europe to?
Why do we use GDP though? On average quality of life, Europe left the USA in the dust. GDP just measures how expensive everything is. More expensive things is bad.
GDP is a measure of productivity, which is (normally) corrected for inflation.
The point you are making is exactly the reason why this problem is so existential for Europe. QoL is good, so nobody wants to change anything, or feels the need to.
But structurally, Europe is not sound and European leaders know it (Just look at the surge in rhetoric about Euro independence). Do you know the story of the ant and the grasshopper?[1] Europe is in a 50 year long post soviet era summer. Most young (and now even middle aged!) Europeans only know summer, so it's going to be incredible difficult to get them to collect food for this mythical thing called "winter".
Can you provide convincing evidence that this is the case? What is the winter that is coming? And that your proposal will prevent it? And what exactly is your proposal anyway?
North Koreans think the outside world is going to collapse because they aren't doing what North Koreans are doing, but it's all just propaganda. You need to distinguish what you say from this.
The surge in anti-EU rhetoric seems to be mostly coming from US propaganda bleeding over, and is still a minority.
People have been predicting the immediate collapse of Europe and the immediate collapse of the USA for decades.
Nobody on the ground, who actually buys groceries, trusts official inflation numbers. How much apparent GDP growth is actually just unreported inflation? I saw some food getting 50-100% more expensive over the last 5 years, which is 10% per year. What was GDP growth? Less than 10%...
Many topics condensed into a single comment to conserve rate limit.
> People have been predicting the immediate collapse of Europe
Have they? I thought most were predicting stagnation and slow decline? Which has been the cast for the past >15 years. Europe is just being left behind..
> trusts official inflation numbers
Because they are unwilling to read and learn what these numbers mean and how they are calculated?
> What was GDP growth? Less than 10%...
Well… reported GDP growth is always adjusted by inflation.
This is not a fair question. The roaring 20s had no idea The Great Depression was coming. Most people didn't see the 2008 crash happening. Ukraine signed agreements with Russia to not be attacked. In 2019, no one was worried that their country couldn't produce face masks or mRNA vaccines.
IMHO, the only foreseeable disaster now is climate change and CN/TW conflicts. I'm not smart enough to model the downstream effects of those events and how Europe should be preparing for them.
The USA is forcing TSMC to at least shift some of their output to US soil.
> anti-EU rhetoric
I don't know what you mean by anti-EU rhetoric. Americans have no problems with the a centralized governance for Europe. Generally speaking, we are taught the EU is a good thing Europe (and the USA), because we want strong allies.
Just like how the EU got upset with Greece for poor fiscal responsibility, the US is concerned about the EU's military investments, tech development, and general economic output.
> trusts official inflation numbers
I think you're comparing apples and oranges. The inflation numbers are not supposed to represent any one individual's on-the-ground's inflation numbers. For example, Washington state adding a gas tax might not show up in the national inflation numbers, but if you're a long distance trucker, you're definitely experiencing inflation.
---
Anecdote with heavy sampling bias: When traveling in Southeast Asia, I met tons of Europeans complaining 5 day work weeks is too much and 30 days of PTO isn't enough. One woman in her 30s took an additional month off of unpaid leave so she could have a second holiday in Laos, Malaysia, and Thailand.
IMHO, Europeans should be developing their own tech / biotech / military, instead of demanding 4 day work weeks, and 60d holidays.
Joining the rat race isn't worth it, in the near-term, which is why the threat is existential. Europe has been sleeping on it's laurels for 30 years now, and the signs are clear; borderline stagnating economies, low working hours, generous benefits, and most importantly still relying on the exact same industries as 30 years ago. Europe totally missed out on the tech boom, and is now also missing out on the AI boom. And Europeans response has largely been "Whats the issue, we can just buy it from the Americans/Chinese?".
Russsia invading Ukraine, and the US providing the majority of the weapons and cash to stave off Putin should have been a gut-punch wake up call that Europe is in an extremely vulnerable position, and needs to get to work building their own modern tech, their own defense, and their own industry.
Failure to do those things will lead to Europe balkanizing as the economic situation gets worse under the weight of an aging population and shrinking economic output. Young Europeans think they cracked the code of comfortable living, but really they are just in a post-cold war golden period. Very similar to the post-WII era American baby boomers enjoyed (except they had lots of children).
> Russsia invading Ukraine, and the US providing the majority of the weapons and cash
That's beyond false, US provided little non-military help, the money mostly stayed in US and went to US contractors.
I don't need to tell you that those figures are also insanely inflated by crazy costs.
Zelenski himself has stated that he proposed multiple times to, e.g., send its navy to US ports to take the weapons so US taxpayers wouldn't have to bear the costs, but instead tens of billions went into that expense. Why? Because US support to Ukraine is a welfare machine for US contractors.
In total EU has provided around 3 times more between military and non-military.
IMHO, the US and China’s hurry to expand into every possible corner is unsustainable. Unless we are actually trying to get ready to face an extraterrestrial threat, our endless effort to maximize our tech and become more and more efficient and profitable is unneeded and puts too much stress on earthlings, which is definitely not sustainable. Do you really believe that when we are able to pass production of almost anything to AI and robots and give generous UBI to each and every person, they will be happy and satisfied? It is a dead end, a loss of meaning that we are racing to reach ASAP.
Population collapse cannot be a good enough reason, either. Older people won't be happier if their servants are robots instead of climate migrants.
The standard of living in China is bad for most people. IMHO, they need to expand in order to provide the same lifestyle as offered in the USA.
This has the energy of "Why are we building rockets to the moon, when there are homeless people in San Francisco"-vibes?"
> give generous UBI to each and every person
Have you seen the movie Wall-e? I don't think society should strive to outsource all labor to AI and robots, nor is that the final end-state of building robots and AI.
We could just, like, not give billionaires so much money, and there will be more left for everyone else.
Yeah, if we want to be the world superpower we have to work really hard. But we definitely won't get any of the benefits of being the world superpower - just like Americans don't already - all of it accrues to billionaires. And it'll make the rent really high. So why should we want that? Of course, we don't want anyone else to be a world superpower either, because kings/dictators/emperors are bad.
I know a friend who was building his first website, he asked in our startup group how to handle the GDPR cookie banner, it likely wasted 1 day on that, when he had invested maybe a whole othery day on the project.
At that moment in time the GDPR cookie banner amounted of 50% of the effort.
It killed momentum, it killed willpower with beuracracy.
It should have asked himself how to get users, not how to comply with GDPR for a website that in that moment had 0 users.
The problem was not the cookie banner, but rather that they were doing things that required user consent (most commonly: filling up the website with 3rd-party marketing tools).
You can have a website as big as GitHub without a cookie banner yet still be compliant.
It's pure ideology that "cutting red tape" will lead to growth. Unfortunately I don't think there's much to understand, perhaps beyond the US giving the EU some kind of kickback for complying.
I know from the inside it feels like nothing is wrong, but if you're looking at the EU as a whole from the outside, the economies there have been coming apart for many years. You could even say the wheels have already fallen off. 100% of the economic woes in the EU are conferred by EU membership, and the web of inefficient, bureaucratic laws therein. Geographically speaking, Europe is positioned, perfectly, to be an economic powerhouse. It is close to the Middle East where much of the energy comes from, close to Africa where energy and other resources come from, close to Asia where certain base materials and manufactured components come from, surrounded by oceans everywhere, the Mediterranean has more than 1/5 of the world's coastline, giving ample opportunity to develop commercial ports, etc. The only reason the economies of Europe are in trouble is because of the EU. That is the only reason. The EU is the singular one only single reason. The EU. That is the single reason.
Cookie banners are just one tiny example that illustrates how death from 1000 cuts is a real thing. In the case of cookie banners, you could say it's death from 100 cuts, because, if you live in the EU, you spend probably one percent of your entire life clicking cookie banners. 7.2 minutes a day is all it takes to waste one percent of your productive life (assuming 12 hours of useful time per day). You might scoff at this, "I probably spend 10 seconds", but I spend probably a minute or more dealing with broken cookie banner garbage every day and I am an American. Just from American websites complying with GDPR nonsense, we have to waste some small portion of our lives here as well. Stupid laws written by stupider bureaucrats ruin everything for everyone. This is the description of an idiot by Dostoyevsky, somebody who does things that harm themselves and others.
My hot take is that this is a signal for Trump. We play nice with you, you play nice with us.
Big tech is well connected to the current US administration so if the EU were to make theses changes, then they will appease big tech (a little bit) and therefore by extension Trump.
I (like you) don't think that these regulations are the reason the EU doesn't have home grown hyper-scalers a la AWS or GCP or Azure.
I think the EU just fell asleep at the wheel for too long. It basically outsourced its defense to NATO, its tech needs to the US and its manufacturing to China and for a while it worked perfectly.
However the world is changing and the EU is simply in my opinion not up to the task. It's too slow, bureaucratic and messy to be able to adapt rapidly and it lacks the vision necessary to remedy to its weaknesses.
1. We really have no realistic threat on our borders. Russia can't even cope with Ukraine alone in conventional warfare. Who do we have to defend from? And there are way bigger militaries than Ukraine in EU alone, let alone as a coalition, such as Poland.
2. Would like to remind you that article 5 has only been invoked by US and we lost many lives on something that wasn't even relevant to us, let alone the other wars in africa or central asia that we joined. So far, it's been Italian and Polish blood falling to comply with our North American ally, it hasn't been the opposite case for decades.
3. I think the European commission is simply corrupted, and when it comes to this data stuff, please notice how many dozens times Thorn and Palantir and many other US security companies have lobbied EU commission members, and those are just the registered meetings, you don't need to record phone calls or out-of-office encounters:
I'm quite convinced Ursula von Der Leyen is corrupt and is selling out Europe and keeps engaging in anti European policies.
4. EU would be fine, if it was able to pursue a coherent foreign policy. Instead you have 20+ countries where the occasional Hungary can veto anything. It should be given more power on many fronts. We shouldn't have 20+ privacy agencies, 20+ ways to register a company, 20+ different legislations on this and that.
5. There are politicians with the right vision, such as Macron, but most politicians have to live election by election, so it's very hard to pursue long term strategies. To be fair though, US is showing the same symptoms with one executive undoing what the previous has done from a bit.
Are you sure you meant to respond to me? I agreed with you on most of what you said regarding the regulations but just in case let me respond to your points:
> We really have no realistic threat on our borders. Russia can't even cope with Ukraine alone in conventional warfare. Who do we have to defend from? And there are way bigger militaries than Ukraine in EU alone, let alone as a coalition, such as Poland.
Is that a counterpoint to my NATO comment? If so I agree, I think that the EU countries should exit NATO and form their own military alliance. However it is very clear that investing in military capabilities is not the priority of the EU countries as only a few of them managed to spend the required amount each year as per the NATO treaties. Most likely such alliance will be dead in the water.
> Would like to remind you that article 5 has only been invoked by US and we lost many lives on something that wasn't even relevant to us, let alone the other wars in africa or central asia that we joined. So far, it's been Italian and Polish blood falling to comply with our North American ally, it hasn't been the opposite case for decades.
Again I agree with you. I think that the US has caused much suffering by invading Irak and Afghanistan and then Libya (with the help of other countries), thereby causing the refuge crisis and then leaving the EU countries alone to deal with this problem.
> I think the European commission is simply corrupted, and when it comes to this data stuff, please notice how many dozens times Thorn and Palantir and many other US security companies have lobbied EU commission members, and those are just the registered meetings, you don't need to record phone calls or out-of-office encounters: https://transparency-register.europa.eu/search-register-or-u...
I'm quite convinced Ursula von Der Leyen is corrupt and is selling out Europe and keeps engaging in anti European policies.
She was not elected to be a good politician.
She was a terrible politician in here home country. There was nothing to expect from her at any level and so far she has not disappointed. Her secret deal with Pfizer and her missing text messages are just the tip of the Iceberg.
> EU would be fine, if it was able to pursue a coherent foreign policy. Instead you have 20+ countries where the occasional Hungary can veto anything. It should be given more power on many fronts. We shouldn't have 20+ privacy agencies, 20+ ways to register a company, 20+ different legislations on this and that.
That is never going to be the case because all EU countries want different things and for very good reasons. They have different needs and different economies.
So the German government will keep selling out its EU "partners" as long as they can keep selling cars in the US. France or Italy would have done the same.
> There are politicians with the right vision, such as Macron, but most politicians have to live election by election, so it's very hard to pursue long term strategies. To be fair though, US is showing the same symptoms with one executive undoing what the previous has done from a bit.
I disagree with you on Macron. Macron has no vision besides a "more" federal Europe. The details are not very clear and his policies are constantly changing depending on his approval level in the polls. His promise when he was elected was that to put the far right out of business by the end of his presidency, the reality however is that the far right is now the biggest party in France and is in very strong position to win the 2027 election.
> That is never going to be the case because all EU countries want different things and for very good reasons. They have different needs and different economies.
That's quite of a weak argument, every state or county in the US has conflicting interests too. But there has to be defined boundaries in what is the business of EU and what is the business of single states.
I would say that matters like digital data privacy should have one common policy, not 20+ agencies.
Come now - you are setting yourself up for an easy rhetorical response with that assertion.
I’m not disagreeing that america gets more migrants.
But are you going to say that migrants are “average” when compared to the average Joe ?
On average immigrants from a country are the people who are capable enough or desperate enough to make the move to an entirely different culture and life. America used to attract some of the best talent out there.
Most people, in most countries, are not that driven.
And besides that, the different in net immigration numbers are not so wide, as to suggest that the EU is unattractive.
>There's literally 0 startups I've been part of where data protection laws or even the infamous cookie banners have been anywhere near relevant (unless your business was literally profiling).
On top of that: it seems like Microsoft (and Google too) is doing its best at alienating customers with those measures.
Everything is now either accessing your data directly and you have to opt-out or you can't even opt out at all.
This AI rush/push is also permeating every line and product: from the office suite, to github, to vscode, and even open source tools are getting AI shoved in, like Playwright, and it feels everything else is an afterthought.
It seems Nadya is making a Ballmer-level play. Ballmer had the right intuition: that Microsoft had to move its focus from the desktop to the cloud. But the execution was poor. Now history's repeating.
It’s a perception problem AMPLIFIED by a trust problem. People don’t trust Microsoft. Or at least they trust Google more than they trust Microsoft.
For a small period of time, I was actually using Edge + Copilot everyday (and it was decent) but their competition has improved so much and appears WAY more privacy focused. I know that Sam Altman is trying hard to stay within the bounds of people’s trust, which once broken is hard to replace (he even said so in an interview).
For now he doesn't seem like a bad actor in the AI industry.
However, the moment it becomes more sustainably profitable to grow a mustache and start wearing monocles he likely will, and if he doesn't he'll be ousted and replaced by someone far worse.
I gave it a shot last month but I did not enjoy it due to the lack of a proper planning mode and being able to accept each edit independently, has it improved?
I have implemented an interpreter for a very basic stack-based language (you can imagine it being one of the simplest interpreters you can have) and it took me a lot of time and effort to have something solid and functional.
Thus I can absolutely relate to the idea of having an LLM who's seen many interpreters lay out the ground for you and make you play as quickly as possible with your ideas while procrastinating delving in details till necessary.
reply