Sure. And that is why I think chat control will happen.

I remember that UK has an odd and ancient “law”

The Treason Felony Act of 1848. Nothing odd about it. That used to be quite standard. Actually, the years of 1848/49 saw many major revolutions and hard fighting across the continent.

For my German homies…

Ahh, nostalgia. Thank you.

On EU age verification: https://digital-strategy.ec.europa.eu/en/policies/eu-age-verification

As for chat control: With that attitude, probably.

That attitude isn’t the problem.

Look around on Lemmy. People are saying that the EU needs to enforce its law against Big Tech. It must protect its citizens. It’s about “our values”. Blah blah blah…

When that happens, you immediately get age verification. Germany had a social media service called StudiVZ. It was forced to segregate minors to a separate service. American social media not doing that is an example of them not following our laws and our values (not mine, not sure whose).

These big corpos make big money by enabling pedos to groom children. We need to hold them accountable and force them to stop that! Does that make sense? Well, now you have to make Big Tech read private messages to search for suspicious activity. There’s your chat control.

The murder of political enemies by the Nazis is usually not considered part of the Holocaust.

The Nazis created concentration camps to detain people immediately after they assumed power. The death camps in which millions were gassed were its own thing within that system.

The detainment concentration camps were for leftists and democrats. Then also people from the margins of society. The so-called “work-shy”; meaning people who had for whatever reason troubles functioning. It would have included Hitler if he hadn’t succeeded with that politics grift. Gay people, of course. Jehovah’s Witnesses because they were conscientious objectors. Of course, people were tortured and maltreated in these camps, too. But how bad it was very much depended on the status of the prisoner.

The first Holocaust killings are usually said to be the hospital patients who were victims of the Aktion T4 in September 1939 when the war started. Disabled people who needed care were murdered to free up resources for the war effort. One method was locking them in an idling truck and suffocating them with exhaust fumes.

Mostly, they can’t. Businesses like Walmart have margins of around 3-4% or so. If the cost goes up an extra 10% or more, that’s it.

Besides, I don’t see why they would prop up a guy who’s ruining them, anyway. Even if it didn’t require gifting billions to customers.

In war, the economy does not slow down. It is turbocharged.

A nuclear war could counter global warming by triggering a nuclear winter but the actual effects are very uncertain. Basically, for a nuclear winter, a lot of “dust” needs to be lifted into the stratosphere. Those huge, multi-megaton bombs that they had back in the day caused a mushroom cloud that rose all the way to the stratosphere. Today, smaller, more precisely targeted bombs are preferred. It also depends on how combustible the targets are. No one is really quite sure what the climate effect of nuking a city is.

ETA: That was how climatologists saw nuclear winter ~15-20 years ago. No idea if anything has changed, but there probably wasn’t a lot of new data.

A substantial reduction in the human population would largely end the burning of fossil fuels and trigger reforestation; removing CO2 from the atmosphere. Ultimately, I would expect WW3 to greatly mitigate global warming.

Most people don’t care about locked-down tech. They don’t have the skills necessary to use anything open, and that’s fine. You have to pick what you do with your limited time.

OTOH, many people want to have control over their data. That means having control over other people’s computers. It’s not just the copyright industry demanding money, or Big Tech building walled gardens. You can see a lot of users on Lemmy demanding that kind of control. That means that computing devices of all kinds must become more locked-down and remote-controllable.

So that’s where I see us going.

You mean legally? Yeah, no problem. It depends on the location, though. In the EU, the rights-holder can opt out. So if you want to do it in the EU you have to pay off Reddit, Meta, and so on. In Japan, it’s fine regardless. In the US, it should turn out similarly, but it’s up to the courts to work out the details, and it’s quite up in the air if you can trust the system to work.

The usual tends to be that the platform can do basically whatever. That shouldn’t really be surprising. But I see your point. If you literally want consent, not just legally licensed material, then you need more than just a clause in the TOS.

You could raise the same issue with permissively licensed material. People who released it may not have foreseen AI training as a use, and might not have wanted to actually allow it.

For images, yes. Most notable is probably Adobe. Their AI, which powers photoshop’s generative fill among other things, is trained on public domain and licensed works.

For text, there’s nothing similar. LLMs get better the more data you have. So, the less training data you use, the less useful they are. I think there are 1 or a few small models for research purposes, but it really doesn’t get you there.

Of course, such open source projects are tricky. When you take these extreme, maximalist views of (intellectual) property, then giving stuff away for free isn’t the obvious first step.

And quartz, of course.

“Instance” is programmer lingo. Roughly, it’s when you have the same piece of code running multiple times with different values (as part of the same system). More narrowly, “instance” is used in the context of classes. All lemmy instances run the lemmy code but with different users, admins, and so on. The expression makes perfect sense, but it is not used in a formal way.

A lemmy instance runs a web server. Wikipedia says that when you host a web page under a dedicated domain name, you have a website.

Far fewer than 1 in 20 defendants get a jury trial in the US. If every defendant insisted on their right to one, then the system would break down for lack of jurors.

Few juries would decide to nullify, since, by and large, Americans believe in punishment.

So the change would be insubstantial.

The high frequencies are the first to go.

There is no formula. You’re mainly interested in wages, and those are negotiated.

Can’t tell if troll or stupid.

Lemmy.world is trying very hard to comply with the law. I think the same is true for lemm.ee; in that sense, they have already caved.

Sooner or later, EU governments are going to take a closer look at the fediverse. There are very loud demands that regulations should be more vigorously enforced. Some instances may not survive.

Maybe what happens first is that some instance gets sued. Maybe by the copyright industry, but I wouldn’t be surprised if it was some disgruntled user.

The EU doesn’t value the freedom of information (“free speech”) in the same way as the US, and a lot of people on the fediverse will tell you that it’s just more American bullshit. You shouldn’t assume that there is any “we” that wants to get around regulations.

Ok, another answer closer to the ground. 2 goals are often invoked. Reduce the trade deficit and increase domestic manufacturing.

1. Trade deficit

… means that more goods (and services) come into the US from the rest of the world than the US delivers in return.

Reducing the trade deficit makes Americans poorer by design. There will be fewer goods available for Americans, either because they have to give up more to the rest of the world, or because they don’t come into the country in the first place.

The rest of the world is willing to loan money to people, companies, and governments in the US. It is also eager to invest in the country, because it really was a good place in which to do business. Look at the current big thing: AI. You can’t really do that in the EU, and investing in China has its own risks. Trump may actually reduce the deficit by making the US more of a South American style banana republic.

2. Manufacturing in the US.

One manufactures stuff outside the US and transports it there because it is more efficient. Americans can be more profitably employed in different areas. Moving more manufacturing to the US should be expected to leave the average American poorer. It should not be expected, in isolation, to reduce the trade deficit as it creates new investment opportunities that potentially attract foreign money, increasing the deficit.

However, while Americans would be left financially poorer, there may be benefits not captured by conventional econometrics. Maybe manufacturing is more emotionally satisfying in a way that is not captured by only looking at the wages. Who knows?

Unfortunately, getting to that state will be brutal. Millions of people will have to find and learn new jobs. That is what happened when manufacturing was off-shored. Reversing that will have the same cost. Some economists have come to believe that the psychological cost of such structural changes has been vastly underestimated, and that is why trade agreements are so unpopular. The benefits from free trade may not outweigh the psychological pain and disruption of communities. Reversing free trade will have similar effects, that are likewise virtually impossible to measure.

I think the most objective benefit would arise if a war happened that disrupted trade. For example, if Trump invaded Canada and Greenland, this would probably lead to the US being embargoed. Then it would appear good to have already built manufacturing capacity in the US while it was still easy. You need physical goods to fight wars, after all.

There is no absolute, objective way to judge if some policy is a good or bad. We can only determine if some policy achieves its goals. This is difficult as different justifications for the tariffs have been given.

We can also have philosophical arguments over whether the goals are good in some abstract sense. For example, some people on the right feel that the US not having access to X-mas knick-knacks and gifts is positive, as it will force people to engage with religion.