Here's a plan to build a reactor that generates unlimited energy, at the human scale anyway : take a lot of hydrogen. Put it together until there is enough mass to spontaneously start thermonuclear reactions. Then it will start generating lots of energy for a long time. Having a plan does not mean 9 billion people on Earth are going to be able to build the thing. Then it does not mean either that they are going to be able to use that energy to do something. You need also physical things on which that energy can act, and that's not going to appear magically.
> we should not allow everyone access to unlimited intelligence
Who's we ? Who's going to decides who has access to "unlimited intelligence" ? An AI ? Why would the AI be better than a human ?
> One with no off switch.
Whe're not living in the Matrix, such a thing is not possible. If it were it would be a likelier candidate for the Fermi paradox than what you're proposing.
They explicitly say that they use your "content" to improve their models. Considering they practically have infinite compute at their disposal, why is it surprising that they would look for juicy data in there to make them look good ? When they ingested basically the entirety of human knowledge without regard to the rights of others, when they burn books by the thousands, when their relentless barrage of bots have rendered the Web borderline unusable, why would they stop at that line ?
You’re always going around insulting people. Does it make you feel powerful?
Is it really hard to believe the people who would consume all the world’s data regardless of copyright and norms and permissions would not respect the data privacy of a user?
The exact scenario from TFA is listed just before the diagram you're referencing :
"If a farmer packs a few apples in a container (sales packaging) and sells it under its own name or trademark to a retailer or consumer in the same Member State, the farmer is a producer [for the purpose of EPR obligations]"
And :
"If the farmer sells the packed apples under its own name or trademark in another Member State, the farmer is only the producer if the recipient is the end user of the apples."
And :
"If the farmer is a micro-enterprise, which is often the case, and the supplier of the apple container is established in the same Member State, such supplier becomes the producer"
That last exemption is quite restrictive, it can be a problem. I can attest that a French manufacturer of antistatic packaging refused to sell to me as a micro enterprise when I was selling electronics kits a long time ago and I had to buy them from China. Some states might not even have packaging manufacturers. So the concerns from the article are founded.
> 6) Who is the ‘manufacturer’ of branded packaging? NEW!
And it starts off this blurb:
> According to the PPWR (Article 3(1), point (12)), if a packaging does not bear a name or trademark,
the manufacturer will be the natural or legal person who manufactures packaging or packaged products.
Seems pretty obvious to me the generic bubble envelope example from the blogpost doesn't make sense because that is generic packaging where the manufacturer has to handle this.
Edit: The farmer example is a bit bad imho because produce is not like the products in the blogpost and 'under its own trademark' applies to the product packaging (e.g. custom Apple carton frames etc.), best to focus on the more applicable sections imho.
How does that jibe with the following paragraph then?
> If company A sells the cardboard boxes to Company C in another Member State, and
Company C fills the boxes to transport packaged products, then Company C would
typically be the producer in that Member State.
This example makes no mention of whether Company C is a micro-enterprise. This is under transport packaging, not branded packaging.
Maybe they wouldn't care about the ads but the residential proxy is another story. I'm sure lots of problematic stuff goes through that and you take the risk of being associated with it.
Not to pile up on the negativity, but looking at the SDK, first reaction is it's fucking C++ ? Can't wait for my watch to crash in the middle of something. And second reaction, when I see signatures like this :
littered everywhere, it makes my heart sink a little. Can't we have some data types and data modeling in 2026 please ? And leave unit conversion at the front end where it should be and not have to worry about it in every single core API ?
No, we can't. It's an ultra-low-power embedded ARM Cortex-M33 (successor to Cortex-M4) processor, the right language to use when programming it is C++. You want a minimum of abstractions and a close-to-the-metal programming environment to maximize battery life.
The TrackFace stuff is in example apps (consumers of the SDK), so AFAICT it's doing what you want: unit conversion in the front end.
That said, while I think you picked an example that undermines your point, the point does still stand. The SDK has a lot of rough edges (just not this specific one).
Just because its C++ doesn't mean it'll crash, come on, that's just lazy thinking. It could just as well mean that it will be rock solid and industrial strength. After all, a heck of a lot of very important life-critical systems run on C++ ..
I feel like this whole discussion boils down to one question (as commonly when considering political issues) : do we want a framework that favors progress globally for everyone, or do we want to ensure superiority of some above the others ?
Sure that's simplistic, but human behavior is not that complex, there are a few basic needs and wants that drive everything. In that specific case, those currently in a dominating position (Anthropic, the US) want to put hurdles (regulations) to make it more difficult for others to catch up, and everyone else want to join forces to overtake them.
Latest venture of the ilk behind all that : device attestation for Linux (Amutable). Yes, they clearly have an agenda and are being quite successful at pushing it.
It's called cut and paste (2 actions), not "move" or otherwise. Being consistent with decades of software usage is more important that whatever you think is "broken" or not, because that's not actually the case, just another model of how to do things. The Excel example is particularly interesting, Excel does something similar, so when you "cut" ("ghost" version) and paste in a cell that overlaps with the range being cut, it breaks completely, which it wouldn't if it did the simple "remove cells, put them somewhere in memory, paste them to new location".
reply