idk, If I was in control of a country in the EU I would realize, unfortunately for pretty much everyone on the planet, that we have made a drastic miscalculation by relying on the US so heavily for defense.
However, that is not something that can be reversed meaningfully in less than a decade. So for now, I would play the long game like Germany while working to get the EU to build up a military force large enough to significantly reduce our dependence on the US.
It's not as if the US hasn't repeatedly requested that European nations invest in their defense for the past few decades.
Looking at it dispassionately as a European living in the US, if you wanted to foment the sort of mistrust many Americans have of Europe, I don't think you could have created a more invidious policy.
Even though European defence investment was lacklustre - don't forget that those requests between the lines mean to buy US defence tech and still be dependent on US in time of war.
Countries that have actually invested have same problems - dependance on US tech and their unreliable leadership. Those who had stockpiles of American weapons (or even components from US in mostly domestically made weapons) - still need to coordinate with US (cannot find in the moment, but I definitely read about this, when Sweden couldn't send weapons due to American components inside).
France is mostly (totally??) independent in the matter of defence from America - and Americans hate French for that. America really hated de Gaulle's wish of military and political independence of Europe from America. But he was unsuccessful in his vision, essentially building this status quo: "Americans will military bases in European backyards, Europeans will be tame good boys and Americans will provide security with a pinky promise", Truman Doctrine - I believe.
(West) Germany's extreme pacifism is also thanks to USAs efforts to not repeat Versaille treaty's failures and rise of new Hitler-like figure.
> if you wanted to foment the sort of mistrust many Americans have of Europe, I don't think you could have created a more invidious policy
Sounds like something from Project 2025 propaganda preparations.
I will remind you that only USA triggered NATO Article 5 and whole Europe came to help in their now infamous "war on terror", even including countries that weren't in NATO at the time (though obviously were aligned and wanted to be there) and lost lives there.
I would maybe have believe this statement if current administration would have gone 110% into isolationism, as their election shouts where "America First". At the time it was phrased as: they won't help Ukraine, NATO, or any other organisation/action happening outside USA. Now it means: USA will take anything by force whether you like it or not.
Also you want to eat your cake and have it too. You still want to have tens of thousands of soldiers and your bases in EU, you want EU countries to invest in your defence sector (but pwease pwease don't get too independent, otherwise Uncle Sam will get angwy), though you want to freaking go to war against NATO countries, because Amerika stronk. Also not forget very close cooperation and access given to local military bases for Americans from European counterparts.
Many NATO countries in Europe are steadily investing in defence for 10+ years (mostly from 2014 Crimea annexation) and many more waking up with 2022 total war on Ukraine from ruzzia.
I want European part of NATO to be stronger and more decisive, actions are happening, but Europe still has democracy, not a some weird authoritarian kakistocracy with oligarchical flavour.
So let's not pretend that Europe should pay for USA's wish for total hegemony, worldwide policing and global reserve currency. Europeans lost their lives in USAs wars and enabled this USA vision of global hegemony for last 70+ years.
These rambles prove to me yet again - in what information bubble USA lives, which is dictated by geriatric 80-year-olds still living 20+ years in the past inside their heads and transferred by ignorant talking heads of 24h news cycle.
It can be reversed in a year. In 1941 the US increased its production of tanks by 7x. In 1942 it increased production again by 4x. This idea that building industry takes decades needs to die a painful death.
There's a certain large European country with plenty of resources that is pretty famous for scaling its tank production just a couple years before the US did.
It is a real problem that AI's will basically confirm that most inquiries are true. Just by asking a leading question often results in the AI confirming it is true or stretching reality to accommodate the answer being true.
If I ask if a drug has a specific side effect and the answer is no it should say no. Not try to find a way to say yes that isn't really backed by evidence.
People don't realize that when they ask a leading question that is really specific in a way where no one has a real answer then the AI will try to find a way to agree, and this is going to destroy people's lives. Honestly it already has.
> Almost all games these days are basically like a work in progress, so if you pirate them then the game doesn't stay up to date.
Which, as a mod author and consumer, isn't always a bad thing. More than once, I had to drop just enjoying a game, to patch my published mods because some update that is automatically pushed out, and people have to accept in order to even boot a single-player game. Why? I don't know, but it's really annoying sometimes.
Besides, nowadays cracking groups release smaller patches too, so while you might not get the update the same hour it was published on Steam, usually within a week or two the same group that uploaded the original release, has released another patch.
When you start a subscription, you're agreeing to pay X amount every Y period of time; you're not starting a new agreement every single Y period of time.
They can cancel the prior tier or bump up the price on renewal though. This is the problem with subscriptions, you become complacent and accept incremental changes until you finally notice that you’re being rinsed.
And actually some subscriptions can include unilateral price increases in the contract (a subscription is a contract) with early termination fees. It just isn’t commonly done because word gets around and you will lose business. You typically only see this in predatory industries where there are few alternatives and the service is necessary, like local waste management.
If the contract is unfair enough you can usually escape it in court or arbitration, but nobody wants to go through that.
No, that doesn't make sense at all. You've paid for consistent terms for that Y period of time. Not cancelling the subscription when it's up for renewal is an implicit agreement to any new terms. And I'm sure if you'd read those terms in the first place, you'd come to the same understanding.
(And it's not even that: the X you're charged is subject to change upon renewal!)
I'm not arguing that this is a good or bad thing, just pointing out the reality of every single subscription agreement I've signed up for online.
They can cancel the subscription if you don't agree to the new proposition after they fulfilled their contract. But they can't just change the terms of the agreement after it was made.
But doing so would mean risking to loose customers who were just too lazy to cancel. So most Businesses don't like it. (Spotify did cancel their old contracts though, for people who had not agreed with the recent price hike)
I think your question is reasonable, but no, I do not think a company gets to promote a service as having no ads as part of the sell, and then put ads in by default.
Not the person you're replying to, but it just feels like rent-seeking. Amazon is already a gigantic corporation, pretty much everyone spends lots and lots of money on Amazon, it just felt like a way to try and squeeze more money out of their existing customers.
ETA:
I mean, I'm sure there is some exception to this, but generally speaking everyone hates ads. Part of the reason that the whole "cable cutting" thing happened was because everyone hated paying a lot of money to some cable company just to be bombarded with advertisements. At least that's a big reason as to why I did it.
Now all these media companies realized that they can start shoving ads at us again and people will keep paying.
Obviously I'm not entitled to having media at a specific price indefinitely, but I'm perfectly allowed to not like it when companies engage in rent-seeking bullshit.
It wouldn't bother me as much if you could still buy media, but as far as I can tell most TV shows don't get Blu-ray releases anymore. The media companies realized that it's more profitable for them to make you pay for the same media forever instead of a lump cost, I guess preferably with you watching corporate brainwashing to buy products.
I suspect once the heat on this settles down, every streaming service is going to start forcing ads on us at all times, and then the only way to fight back on this will be bittorrent.
Or just stop watching. I seem to be out of tune with what people want in a TV show nowadays, I don't find much enjoyable. I accept there was never that much, but given how much content is produced now I would have expected more in my sweet spot.
I agree with you, though I would say what is happening here is more like strip mining vs cutting dead wood.
I don't know that it should be legal to buy a company and then pay for it by loading up the company with debt obligations. It seems like a form of value destruction in order to enrich a bunch of vultures.
Fundamentally it is basically saying maybe we could buy this company and then plunder it with some % chance that it will still stay afloat and keep generating profit after they gut the company to try to service a debt that should not be attached to the company at all and provided no value to anyone but the vultures.
I'm not sure, but this seems like a form of anti-social behavior that destroys value for everyone except the people plundering the company. It is almost like piracy and we should honestly try to figure out a way to not allow large companies to be destroyed in this manner.
We just shouldn't let people buy profitable companies because they think they can make a return by destroying the business and then bleeding out a small profit once the company had been gutted. It isn't good for the economy, the employees, or really anyone except the plunderers.
Companies that go out of business hurt more than the owners - they hurt the employees, the community, the state (which has to care for the employees let go), etc.
That is unfortunate, but it is good for society to have rapid turnover of unprofitable businesses. The employees will be fine and get new jobs. When one company goes under, they will go to another. You don't work for a company, you work for an industry, and unless the layoff is due to industry wide issues, you will be fine.
It's bad for society to have rapid turnover full stop. It's disruptive and stressful to the humans involved and can be disastrous for the environment (if a bankrupt company just leaves a bunch of waste behind or already did and can't be sued to cover the cleanup), disastrous for the rest of the economy, local or larger (both their customers and their suppliers are affected), and causes a huge amount of wasted time and resources that should be avoided where possible.
We've learned that businesses are lazy, cheap, and untrustworthy, and will lie, steal, cheat, and abuse everything unless you write strong rules and enforce them regularly. It's in society's best interests to incentivize running good businesses, not creating messes and declaring bankruptcy.
The last damn thing I ever want is some centrally planned hell with some worthless bureaucrat telling me how to run my business when he has no idea how. This is a competition. Sink or swim. And if you can't swim you should be out of the game.
Some problems are much easier to solve than others. The problems you are bringing up are far more intractable and far harder and more expensive to solve.
What about Apple there? Bringing golden offerings to their god-king and so supporting the further corruption of the regime. One of the few with the power/money to stand against them instead kneeling before Trump like a teen beauty pageant hopeful.
as a former MSFT employee (who quit for reasons, well before the layoffs) I am not permitted to disparage or portray my former employer in a negative light.
I'm just mentioning this for no reason whatsoever. It popped into my head, for some reason.
However, that is not something that can be reversed meaningfully in less than a decade. So for now, I would play the long game like Germany while working to get the EU to build up a military force large enough to significantly reduce our dependence on the US.
reply