This EU regulation diminishes the incentive of researching and developing a new technology in this area. This is a fact.
And no, innovation usually does not come from a bunch of companies sitting down to cooperate on a new version. First there is individual innovation, then there is consolidation, even if these come with changes from the original.
> There's still an incentive to be the company that replaces the technology.
That may be the case. But the innovation won't be deployed to Europe first.
Technologies and standards need adoption first before they'll be taken seriously by bureaucrats. And you're going to have a hard time getting adoption if it's literally against the law to do so.
Funny enough, if Micro-USB has been mandated by the EU, Lightning wouldn't even exist and everyone would have been stuck with the IMHO chunky Micro-USB.
Micro-USB was mandated by the EU. That's a large part of the reason we even have a standardized charging port.
This has been enforced since late 2012 (in draft since 2008) and is the reason why Apple had to include the micro-USB adapter in order to sell in the EU.
There is no reason for speculation since facts are available on your friendly neighborhood wiki. What we're seeing now is that the law is updated to enforce USB-C, which has been accommodated for a while.
The intent is not to standardize on an implementation forever, but to make the industry agree on a standard.
It wasn’t mandated the same way USB-C is today. It had enough flexibility that Apple could implement the superior Lightning connector. If the EU mandated micro-usb the way they are USB-C, Lightning would not have been released.
Please explain why you think this is true, it is far from obvious. I don't have time to read the legalese in detail, but from reading an abstract it doesn't seem to be the case.
We had a fkin usb-c with godspeed of data transfer and 120-240W transfer and is universally adopted across different devices and brands and Apple still is using a fkin usb 2 with proprietary connector. There is innovation, Apple decided it's users don't need that to sell them overpriced accessories
Lightning is capable of faster speeds. They just (probably rightly) decided it wasn’t worth the cost to put that in their phones when basically nobody transfers data on their phone using a cable. I believe one iPad had it before they switched to usb-c.
So why they did replace lightning in ipads and didn't use it for macbooks to create a full lightning ecosystem? Suggestion: because it is not capable and they know that lightning is nothing more than a cash cow for overpriced accessories
Or because they knew their "power-users," as in people with laptops and iPad Pros, would prefer USB-C. They probably wanted to keep control over accessories on the iPhone not only for straight up financial reasons, but also to make sure "it just works."
Anyways, USB-C is obviously technically more advanced - but it doesn't really matter for phones much, does it? Most people only ever transfer data on their phones from/to the cloud.
It does matter. Much faster charging, much faster transfer for prores 4k videos. The fact that a lot are using cloud doesn't mean few use cable for data transfer
Big nuclear power plants are not the ones behind regulations. Big oil and carbon-based power plants and others are the ones that lobby for nuclear power plant regulations.
We also have a remote team in different timezones. What we do instead is just the slack version of a "stand-up". Everyone writes whenever they start what they did yesterday as bullet points, what they will do today and if there are any blockers or important reminders. Doesn't take 5min of each ones time, keeps everyone in the loop and helps managers intervene if some other sprint task needs to be prioritized instead. Cost-benefit seems to be fine for us. Sure, you will still get the example mentioned, but that is still low cost after all. You can always reply in threads if something needs more detail.
Bonus point: everything gets documented for future references if needed. Also, when I am on holidays but still have that itch to check how the team is doing, I just check that channel.
Company X claimed users voice commands never left their devices. Then someone leaked recordings of people having sex, commiting crimes, etc recorded from X devices. This was brought up by media. For every concerned user there were ten apologist trying to justify this behaviour and a week later everyone forgot this ever happened.
If you’re talking about Amazon, those stories did affect Echo sales, and the trajectory of the category overall. When was the last time you read a breathless article about how smart speakers will change everything?
Post a link so everyone can remember. If it's something you care about, you need to keep reminding people. I'll post stuff about police brutality on threads that are relevant. It helps remind everyone that they are susceptible to the whims of any rogue policeman at any given time, regardless of social status. Most likely with no recourse.
Perfectly as in the exact paint compounds, the effect of that order of brush strokes and timing, and then aging. Such that no art expert or chemical/forensic analysis can tell them apart other than the label saying which is which?
That doesn’t not sound at all feasible. But if it were, then sure the prices would have to be close for the original and new one. It sounds impossible to do, and extremely easy expensive to make a copy like that of a real painting. It’s stupidly easy and simple to do with a digital work.
Any number of artworks are being sold which allow for reproducibility, say photographs. Expensive limited edition prints are a thing. In most of those cases the particular physical manifestation you acquire is entirely a construct. Even for an original painting, the fact that you desire that particular manifestation (over say an improved one which the original artist may now be able to do) is a construct. If a painting needs restoration, you may find that some elements are no longer original; this will not diminish its value. If over the years we replace all the parts of the Mona Lisa, it will still be the Mona Lisa (see also: the Ship of Theseus).
Even the photos that sell are scarcer than digital photos - the only people who could reproduce it are the original artist, or an owner of the photo who made a perfect scan, and the owners of the photo likely aren’t going to distribute scans of their own art.
But that is entirely artificial scarcity. The fact is that they could be produced perfectly; the physical prints need physical security, because if copies were allowed to be made, it would be difficult to know who owns the original.
If the provenance of the real item could be guaranteed, the fact that you have a really good copy wouldn't matter; people would still pay to own the original.
That's exactly what an NFT is; digital security for a digital print. People who buy NFTs don't care that someone else has a copy, they value the artificial scarcity provided by the NFT.
Look, the fact is that if you like a Picasso, you can have a perfect copy made, and you won't be able to tell the difference between the two. In fact, in a blind test, you may end up liking the copy more. The fact that you value the original more because Picasso touched it is totally, absolutely in your head. Empirically, there is no reason why this should make a difference to you.
And then you have a digital token that Picasso personally signed with his private key.
There are a lot of examples at the intersection of this. If you buy a Damien Hirst, the artist may well never have touched the piece - these are being produced by staff. Sol LeWitt's Wall Paintings exist as instructions that different artists re-execute over an over again.
In all these cases, enjoyment of the art is available to everyone; you can have a really good copy. It is totally disconnected with what people value when they pay large sums of money, which is entirely artificial.
It's not analogous, still. First of all, copies of photos are worth less than paintings for a reason. So already we see the price scales down based on how reproducible things are. NFT's therefore should never be close to your average gallery selling a photo reproduction, as they are infinitely copyable for free.
A high quality photo print and frame costs quite a bit of money. That's maybe a couple thousand dollars. And then the artist hangs them in a nice gallery, with sales people. That costs more too. And the final price isn't something like 100x the cost, it's maybe 10x if lucky, often 2-3x.
And again, you can't really reproduce it easily. If I found some really high quality scanning store, I could do a decent job. But it would cost me a lot of money, and the signature on the print wouldn't look or feel real.
So again, big difference, and already we have to admit paintings > prints > digital images.
You absolutely cannot have a perfect copy of a Picasso. Sorry, that's a meme that's not real. You can carbon date the paint. There are ridiculous complexity in his layering techniques. Even the specific paints he used were from his era, and hard to find. It's physically provable to show a Picasso is a real one that came from his hands. Not possible with an NFT as there literally is no original. You can prove the coin is the coin he made, but that's simply not analogous.
> You absolutely cannot have a perfect copy of a Picasso. Sorry, that's a meme that's not real.
Yes, the point I am making though is that if you cannot see the differences with the naked eye, or if in fact you prefer the copy if given a test, then why do you value all that stuff? Enjoy the much cheaper copy.
It is true there are unique properties that a physical original features - it is just that the value assigned to them is arbitrary, and there does not seem to be an obviously good reason to pay a lot of money for it. People do it because of what is essentially a collective hallucination centered around the idea of scarcity.
Now if there were a way to copy a Picasso perfectly, I posit that people would still assign an arbitrarily high value to the original. I mean, you can see that being the case with diamonds.
Obviously, there is something about a physical object that a digital image will never be able to reproduce. That's why people still enjoy real books, right? So I wouldn't be surprised if a real painting would carry a certain premium over an NFT. But the idea that people pay for an NFT, signed by Damien Hirst's own private wallet? I see no fundamental difference between valuing that and valuing the entirely imaginary benefit of Damien Hirst having once stood in the presence of that physical object you bought.
Because in one case I have an original Picasso, in the other all I have is a hash in a blockchain somewhere. I don't get how people don't see the difference.
An original Picasso... vs a hash number.
Would I rather have the basketball that Lebron dunked in a game or some random basketball that Lebron issued an NFT for? They are for all intents and purposes identical. Why do people care?
It's likely because authenticity matters, hard work begetting achievement matters, real world deeds, real world objects matter. Matter matters. It's just how humans work, maybe because we are matter..
Diamonds are a great example. They are in fact scarce, which drives value, and the reason artificial diamonds don't retain value is because they are less scarce. Now work backwards.
I agreed that physical objects have unique properties that digital objects cannot match. But presumably we can appreciate digital artworks nonetheless?
It is also true that the nature of the digital object means that ownership of the NFT is somewhat disconnected from whether a .jpg is physically in your computers memory at any given time.
But the choice is not between an original Picasso and a random hash number, but rather:
- An original Picasso painting vs an equally enjoyable copy.
- An NFT of Picasso's digital illustration vs an equally enjoyable copy.
Are you able to experience that same intangible connection with history by looking at a blockchain entry, as you might be standing in front of an old painting? Maybe not. But you may experience a version of it, in the same as you might by looking at the first websites.
> Would I rather have the basketball that Lebron dunked in a game or some random basketball that Lebron issued an NFT for?
Sure. What about a unique NFT of a sword that was used to win in a watershed eSports event? Note that this would be a digital object that does not merely represent the sword, but it is the sword, i.e. I can now use it in the game. I think people would value that through largely the same mental mechanism as the basketball.
NFT's that aren't just images could be valuable. I had a friend doing TikTok but with a NFT animated assets store. That makes sense! I could see it become popular some day, and then we'd see if Apple, Disney, Blizzard / everyone decide to jump in.
> Diamonds are a great example. They are in fact scarce, which drives value, and the reason artificial diamonds don't retain value is because they are less scarce. Now work backwards.
Even if that were possible, it wouldn't BE the original. Digital bits, unlike physical matter, has no identity, so the concept of "original" makes no sense.
If anyone could instantly make perfect clones of the Mona Lisa anywhere, at any time, then yes in fact the original would lose its value. By definition, it would be impossible to tell which is the original, and anyone could replace it the moment nobody is looking. You'll have to assume it's already happened countless times.
In real life you cannot make perfect molecule-for-molecule clones of physical objects, so what's your point?
Exactly. When the international community makes it clearly more (short term) economically advantageous to preserve the Amazon, then we will have a more sustainable solution.
I find it incredible how people are eager to protect the environment in other people's countries before taking a deep look in-house. Suggesting to buy a strategically important area of Brazil under the umbrella of saving the world is just purely naive or hypocrite. China and US are the main contributors to global warming. Not even the Amazon as it currently stands can keep up with that. Shouldn't we apply sanctions to both of these countries then? Or form a coalition to buy Wyoming (the state with the highest CO2 emissions per capita) e.g., since it is in the interest of the world? If the Amazon rainforest does not belong to Brazil, then why do the natural oil reserves in Texas or Alaska belong to the US?
Just to clarify, I am not pro bringing down the Amazon rainforest, only raising the flag on the tendency to outsource responsibility when it comes to the environment.
I'm reasonably sure that there is a large overlap of people who are in favor of buying the Amazon from Brazil and protecting it and people who want drastic measures to reduce GHG emissions in their own countries and a carbon tax with tariffs on imports from countries that don't have an equivalent system.
"Buying the Amazon from Brazil and protecting it" shows how little you foreigners understand of our country. It's a huge amount of land that is mostly unoccupied. There are serious concerns that smaller rogue countries will pop up in certain parts of it led by local militias. If we want Brazil to remain as one country then the first thing needed to do is to actually be present in a lot of this territory, and that won't happen if the majority of it can't be economically exploited in any way, especially in a country like Brazil where a fair number of the population, especially in the northeast and north regions, are extremely poor. Like any issue related to global warming, it's a little more complicated than people think.
Why would we want that? "We" want the rainforest, habitat to so many wildlife, to remain intact, as undisturbed as possible. So if the protected rainforest is then part of brazil or a hypothetical WWF or greenpeace state doesn't really matter to me, as long as the rainforest remains protected.
And yes, the main problem seems to be the poverty of the local population. When you are poor and starving, you cannot really care about enviroment.
But as far as I know, all the industrialscale rainforest cutting and soy farming did not really changed something about the poverty, or did it?
Because Brazil wants Brazil to remain one country. That kind of a thing takes precedence over essentially any environmental issues for them. You can disregard it, but you will then not understand why Brazil won't play ball.
All the indigenous people want to be so much part of Brazil? (Or were ever asked, if they want to be part of it in the first place?)
I kind of doubt that.
So naivlely asking, why should the corrupt oligarchies in the cities, should have any rights about the rainforest in the first place, when all they care about is to squeeze as much money out of it as possible?
Because teritorial integrity is the sacred cow of modern politics and everybody too scared, what else might happen, if this dogma is to be questioned? Probably yes. So serious international pressure on brazil about really protecting the rainforest, is right now probably the way to go. (Which of course, does not exclude pressure on other sinners)
But it probably does not hurt, if people think about loudly about other consequences, of what might happen if the brazilian government continues to not give a damn, as there are really many supporters of the amazonas rainforest around the globe.
>Because teritorial integrity is the sacred cow of modern politics and everybody too scared, what else might happen, if this dogma is to be questioned?
Compromising another country's territorial integrity can very easily lead to a justified war.
"Justice" is made up by people. For centuries is was justified to conquer and change borders by force. Then suddenly there was a stop ... but all the old borders made by force should remain. That might get questioned again on a broader base, if the borders on a land does not match up with what people think and feel what is right.
So again, why is the amazonian rainforest the property of the brazilian government? Did they plant it? Did they bought it from the people who used to live there?
I don't think so. In the end, it comes down to power. Your government might be stronger than the natives living there, but like I said, more people care about the rainforest now, than the people who lived there.
> So again, why is the amazonian rainforest the property of the brazilian government? Did they plant it? Did they bought it from the people who used to live there? I don't think so.
They fought for and defended their territory just as other sovereign countries.
Quote from some levels above:
> Why do the natural oil reserves in Texas or Alaska belong to the US?
Well, apparently there actually are wars for oil. And there are actually quite some people who would make war for the rainforest. But since environment is their motivation, they prefer different methods.
So you'd also be okay with trade sanctions on the US over their CO2 output? Or does this only go one way, where poor countries have to do the best for the world while your country can do whatever they want?
Yes I would be okay with trade sanctions based on GHG emissions. That's how you would implement a carbon tax, you need tariffs for countries that don't want to join the tax system.
Personally, I think reducing CO2 emissions is more important than USA or China remaining single countries. Which is why I'm in favor of external pressure, for example in the form of trade sanctions.
That's a delusional stance to take. You want the US and china to reduce GHG's? That's great! You want Brazil to stop deforestation? Also great! You insist on using the same kind of pressure to achieve both goals? Uhh... that's absurd, and just won't work.
Pressuring Brazil via trade might work; especially since it's simply not in Brazil's own (medium to long term) economic interests to deforest.
Pressuring the US and china via trade will simply not work. Who is going to do that pressuring, exactly? The EU is busy trying to stave off collapse and infighting, most of africa has more pressing matters than picking fights with superpowers, Russia and other fossil fuel exporters have strong interests is keeping GHG emissions high at least for a while... so... india, maybe? Yeah, right.
Avoiding deforestation is a good idea regardless of what others do with respects to GHG emissions. Hurting yourself and others because life isn't fair enough is ridiculously short sighted. And you know, maybe you could think of other ways to coax china and the US to reduce GHG emissions. At least china isn't run by self-delusional maniacs, so maybe you can get them on board, and then maybe you can pressure the US with china. Or maybe the US miraculously cures its own partisan infighting and decides to be rational and less self destructive, and can help with china. But waiting for their leadership to do anything while whining that life is unfair sounds like a pretty bad idea right about now.
I agree, but I don't think that the USA or China will fall apart if they're forced to build wind turbines, solar panels, and perhaps the occasional nuclear reactor.
>...where a fair number of the population, especially in the northeast and northern regions, are extremely poor...
People in Recife[0] are poor? O.k., maybe a single city isn't fair. How about Pernambuco[1]? Something like 31% of the entire population of Brasil is below the poverty line[2] and I somehow doubt that that specific one-third of the population only lives throughout the north and northeast.
CO2 isn’t the only reason to want to prevent deforestation. Also, yes, we should be encouraging mass reforestation everywhere and buying Wyoming to do that sounds like a good idea (though there may be more cost-effective options, I’m only saying “good” not “best”).
That was the argument made by Bolsonaro. I know he's using it as an hypocritical reason to carry his own absurd acts. It's a race to the bottom, but that's true.. other countries cannot accuse him unless they're clean.
I take it Bolsonaro is a Brazilian government official. This is not how "taking a deep look in-house" works: if we argue that we should look in the mirror before looking at them, they can't use that argument to wish away any changes required in Brazil to keep the Amazon in a reasonable state. They should take a deep look in-house as well. And if they wish us to help with that (development aid from wealthy countries), they are welcome to ask, since it benefits us all.
(1) Low-hanging fruit. Brazil has a huge CO2 sink today. It doesn't need to change infrastructure or teach its public new habits or almost anything in order to preserve it. We can preserve and even improve this CO2 sink with a single decision to ban its destruction. Other countries such as the U.S. has very few such big-ticket items -- it has a million small-ticket items, many of which require social engineering (reduce consumption, stop traveling) or big infrastructure changes (electric cars, public transit, gas tax, nuclear and renewable power, bans on various power-inefficient things).
(2) Global warming is global. One country can destroy the environment for the entire planet. It's our responsibility to act everywhere. Environmentalism doesn't need borders. One could also argue that Brazil doesn't have the moral right to destroy a natural resource like this (nor does any other country).
Your comment smells of whataboutism. How dare we impinge on another country's sovereignty when our own garden desperately needs tending? The answer in all such cases is, of course: You can do both.
It's not whataboutism. It's a matter of principles. International pressure to "buy" a part of another country under the flag of environmental protection is not a reasonable option. It is a quite extreme measure. Why go through such an extreme measure in dealing with other countries' natural resources, while internal environmental problems are not properly addressed. For me, it all sounds like outsourcing environmental responsibility. Just put in perspective the cost/payoff of this proposal.
This arrogance in the argument that the Amazon is not from Brazil and shouldn't be trusted with them is bad for the environmental discussion that needs to happen. Can't we really not think of better solutions?
>Why go through such an extreme measure in dealing with other countries' natural resources, while internal environmental problems are not properly addressed.
Eu não posso entender: Your proposed solution is that Brasil should carry-on doing whatever it wants with the Amazon Rain Forest and other countries should address their own CO^2 emissions, correct?
What is the argument, then, when you consider that Brasil will surpass those very same countries in CO^2 emissions when it no longer has a sink to counteract the effects of its own emissions?
Essentially, you're saying, "Everyone should look after their own messes and let us do what we want," whilst largely ignoring the fact that Brasil would - based on your proposition - be the resultant Sampson to the environment as a direct byproduct of that very premise.
Why can't it be both that the "world's lungs", as the Amazon Rainforest is oft coined, not be devastated and other countries fix their emissions?
This "muh sovruntee" mentality is precisely why we're stagnating (or even regressing) any progress on the positive feedback loop that we're currently sliding into. For example (if I understand correctly), it's why the states backed out of the Paris Agreements[0].
It is actually quite simple to understand. Don't be arrogant in proposing to "buy" a part of another country, because "they don't know how to take care of it". This is the kind of mindset that is counterproductive for the environmental debate. The Amazon belongs to Brazil, the same way that the Swiss Alps belong to the Swiss people, the oil reserves in Texas belong to the Americans, the plastic filled rivers that go to the ocean belong to China etc. There are no simple solutions - low hanging fruits - to the environmental problem. You could easily argue that we could just forbid the US of extracting oil from Texas to help save the planet. But that doesn't seem reasonable either, does it?
Once again, that doesn't mean Brazil should just burn the whole thing to the ground. But the way this will be accomplished is not through hypocrite, neo-imperialistic BS politics. But rather through economically sound negotiations, international agreements, multilateral commitments, that are advantageous for the parties involved.
>I hope you understand that when you suggest intentional pressure to divide a country you're essentially asking for war.
Where is this assumption coming from that I am suggesting international pressure to divide a country? To stop deforestation of Amazon Rainforest? Sure. However, there's a vast berth between that and dividing a country and the former doesn't automatically equate to the latter, yeah?
And no, innovation usually does not come from a bunch of companies sitting down to cooperate on a new version. First there is individual innovation, then there is consolidation, even if these come with changes from the original.