I think it's not as much a democracy as a market. We sometimes say people vote with their wallet on products, so I see where you come from.
Still, in this case I think a market analogy fits better.
There are people who want it and people who don't want it. If the people with a lot of money (to manage for companies) want it, this will move the balance. If it eventually moves it enough remains to be seen.
Decisions can be made with too much excitement and based on overpromises, but eventually someone will draw a bottom line under (generative) AI, the one where currently the huge amount of money gets pumped into. Either will generate generate value that people pay for and the investors make a profit or not. Bubbles and misconceptions can extend the time when the line is drawn, but eventually it will be.
If LLM and generative is generally creates value, or not, I cannot say.
I am sure that the more specialised AI solutions that are better described as machine learning does create this value in their special use cases and will stay.
Big country and many options and all that, but at least with regards to EU support I would say yes, the majority of Germans supports the EU. I would say some regions more than others.
I think it is understood that the EU could be better and is a child of many compromises, but if you want to make it better you have to say what and crucially how.
Until then, why not be happy with what you have, for once.
What does he say? He does not like a few things. Germany is bureaucratic, look at that. Something with reflection that does not further gets explained. No solutions on offer, of course. Some stereotypes feel like they are true. Well, well, what an insight.
He does not like some food, but likes others.
But the best bit is: Germans (the way he writes it, all Germans) have no humor.
Reads like a rant. He probably feels enraged that the f%*king establishment dares to offer him money. He is an artist. And then they have the audacity not to publish his master piece rant.
I mean, it's the expression of a personal view, that's fine. But I can see why newspapers did not want to print it. Not much there, really.
I think for users who don't want to learn about their computer and just use it a (new or used) Mac is the best option if you want cover many use cases.
Linux on Desktop is especially great for used Laptops. In that case the Linux community had a bit of time to adjust to the hardware.
Laptop also offer a well defined hardware environment where you know exactly what's inside.
Once you additional devices the range of hardware that needs to be supported is so much wider and so is the risk that something does not work.
However, especially for more casual users to just use your Laptop and not connect anything ever is in my opinion a quite common use case. There you can optimise to support some Laptops really well. And that is where Linux can shine.
My optimistic interpretation is slightly different. So far the US is still a democracy with a President wo doesn’t take the law too seriously.
On the other side every democracy looses a bit focus over time and laws to keep government clean get softened, IMHO.
But let’s say the next election happens and the opposition will be voted in (if not, god knows where this ends) , then there will be a government with a state apparatus in tatas. They have the burden but also the opportunity to rethink how things are supposed to work and can make changes that most previous governments did not even thought possible.
Maybe, I don’t know. But maybe this slightly painful time is part of a renewal process that in the end will be helpful.
And Trump of all people makes it involuntary possible.
Well my less optimistic observation is that Trump 1.0 broke a whole bunch of norms and was flagrantly incompetent, and the response was almost nothing. The opposition won a middling victory and made almost no structural changes to prevent what's currently happening.
The main response was a series of milquetoast foot-dragging prosecutions that accomplished little more than ralling the Republicans around him and giving him even more media attention.
i can pretty much agree with that. while my comment focuses on the negative "the US will be less relevant", yours focuses on the positive. but they are both possible at the same time. heck, being less relevant may even be a positive in itself.
the current events provide a wakeup call that has the potential to galvanize change. as i said, what we need is a consensus. hopefully the next government will realize that too, and work towards that. otherwise it is up to us individuals to work on that too.
In fairness, it shouldn’t. I think it is acceptable that the foreign workers have valid US work visas and can demonstrate that. Maybe constitution plays sometimes fast and loose with work visas, but that does not automatically make it ok.
I have worked abroad many times and work permits were always under heavy scrutiny by my own company, to the degree that we send one unhappy soul home mid week because some regulations were not met and he came back week smiling because he got a pay rise as comparable rated as local was a requirement.
The problem is, US Visa Waiver Program do explicitly allow business trips using "tourist" "visa"(it's not a visa, it's a waiver. So you won't even have a visa. You also won't be a "tourist", you're a "visitor" under VWP). So it's completely normal for them to be totally unable to demonstrate anything issued or approved by the US government whatsoever other than the oval stamp. They wouldn't even have a visa, and it's legal, as far as how the laws and regulations and official guidance read. I haven't heard that's changed, at least yet.
>Some crossed into the US illegally; some had visa waivers and were prohibited from working; (Steven Schrank, a Homeland Security Investigations special agent in charge)
If the visa waiver suddenly no longer allows working business trips to the USA this is huge news. The terms of the waiver explicitly state it's allowed but it seems not in practice.
This is a definite "get out now" to anyone on a ESTA in the USA right now. Attending a conference, trade show or consulting on a build out of battery plant?" Get out now.
Have you read the requirements? Business visas or ESTA waivers have never allowed "work", there is nothing sudden about it. You can attend conferences and trade shows and have meetings. You can not "work" though.
I'm not an immigration lawyer so I don't know exactly what the requirements cover and what they don't. You are not allowed to "engage in active employment", but I have been permitted in paid for by my employer to attend meetings with company colleagues which is apparently okay.
I imagine a Korean engineer or project manager visiting to meet colleagues and inspect the site should be okay on a business visa or waiver. One who was there working on plans or overseeing construction might not be. You would hope the company had carefully checked these things.
The ICE agents have an overly strict and often incorrect interpretation of visa law. It wouldn’t be the first time this week where they decided to deport someone without adequate cause (and tourists aren’t really guaranteed due process).
So I completely agree on principle. But nonetheless the political job being done by DHS/ICE is not to uniformly and fairly scrutinize all visa holders in the interest of justice. They're supposed to be locking up the "illegals" constantly being held up as an enemy class by the ruling regime, and in practice that means "Latin American laborers", and not "Korean engineers".
No one was sold on throwing international professionals in jail just for showing up to do a job they took in good faith. That's clearly wrong, in a way that rounding up the "bad" people isn't. And so it shows up the horrifying implications of current policy.
There was an interview with a high ranking Microsoft lawyer the other week where the lawyer conceded that even if the company would be a European subsidiary and the employees would be European then Microsoft still would have to obey the new US laws. Of course the employees would be bound by European law, let’s see how that pans out.
The US uses extradition in countries with treaties and rendition most everywhere else. If you're a US citizen you might be safe in Russia or backwoods Africa,Myanmar etc but most anywhere else you're fucked.
> Microsoft still would have to obey the new US laws
This shouldn't be a surprise to anyone given that it is an American company. Being a multinational corporation like Microsoft or Mercedes Benz means you have to navigate rather complex legal situations, follow not just your home country's laws, but also the laws of the countries that you are operating in.
Still, in this case I think a market analogy fits better. There are people who want it and people who don't want it. If the people with a lot of money (to manage for companies) want it, this will move the balance. If it eventually moves it enough remains to be seen. Decisions can be made with too much excitement and based on overpromises, but eventually someone will draw a bottom line under (generative) AI, the one where currently the huge amount of money gets pumped into. Either will generate generate value that people pay for and the investors make a profit or not. Bubbles and misconceptions can extend the time when the line is drawn, but eventually it will be.
If LLM and generative is generally creates value, or not, I cannot say. I am sure that the more specialised AI solutions that are better described as machine learning does create this value in their special use cases and will stay.