Worth distinguishing between actively engaging in harmful behavior, and "failing to help". The Europeans have taken the US for granted for so long that when the US is only Ukraine's #1 donor country in absolute terms by far, their main response is to complain that even more help should be offered, and pretend the US is somehow hurting them.
Keep in mind that Ukraine is literally on the opposite side of the world from us. What's Brazil doing for Ukraine? What's Australia doing?
As an American, I consistently argue that the US should not ally with Europe here on HN. But even I don't argue in favor of actively working to harm Europe. I just think we should cut Europe loose, because nothing we do for Europe will ever be enough, and Europe is a wealthy region that's plenty capable of providing for itself.
Around $1.5B (AUD) so far, Bushmasters, 50 M1A1s, M113s, training, etc.
We didn't sign the Budapest Memorandum, neither are we part of NATO, but we do our part, as we did in Afghanistan, Iraq (after the lies about WMD), in the Red Sea and other international events.
Oh and on the articles you quoted, some of the biggest fines were from the UK, which is not part of the EU.
As for tariffs, the US upended 80 years of work on international trade, with Trump applying tariffs without any underlying criteria except his complete misunderstanding of the difference between a trade deficit and bad trade.
The US has maintained its currency's dominance for all of the post WW2 era, which has allowed you to borrow and spend in a currency that everyone else has to support to be able to buy things like oil.
As an American, you should realize that in the last 6 months, the US has decided to abdicate its leadership, and as oil becomes less important to world trade, the USD will start to lose its dominance over trade, which means that your debts will have to be paid back in other currencies while the tariffs do nothing but damage the US consumers and economy in general.
All the US promised in the Memorandum was to seek UN Security Council assistance if Ukraine was victimized. We went far beyond that.
Think about it: why would Ukraine be so desperate for NATO membership, if the "defense promise" in the Memorandum was already broken? Because there was no meaningful defense promise in the Memorandum! That is simply a malicious lie about the US that's very widespread online. Again, this is why I'm an isolationist. I give up. Our "allies" will hate us no matter what we do. I've figured it out. I want to be Switzerland. We'll worry about our continent, and you worry about yours.
>I love "US so big arguments", no one else cares!!
The US is being targeted specifically because we've given so much. No one is bothering Japan, or Argentina, or Saudi Arabia. It's because the US has been generous (in absolute terms) that we get so much flak.
Imagine if we sent thoughts and prayers the way Kazakhstan does. That way we would get less hate. When's the last time you heard Kazakhstan criticized for lack of Ukraine support?
>And then looking at per capita the US sits at number 16.
>You do know that the per capita number is from your own link? Japan sits at number 19 per capita.
ctrl-f "per capita", nothing comes up.
I do notice that Japan is #19 in terms of % of GDP however...
I actually think your confusion here explains a lot. You don't know the difference between "per capita" and "GDP". That shows you don't speak English well. That's probably why you don't know much about the US.
The fundamental issue is that you think you know a lot, but you actually know little. You're mostly just reading what is written about the US in your native language. Probably there is lots of misinformation.
>Was the US doing about as much as Japan the argument you wanted to make?
Why is the US being harassed and not Japan?
>Or are just here to be a contrarian?
The absurdity of Europeans who complain endlessly about the US, while we've historically pursued a relatively generous foreign policy towards you, gets under my skin.
>Maybe the US have an incentive in seeing the American built world order continue?
I've very consistently stated in this thread, and on Hacker News more generally, that the US should abandon the so-called "American-built world order". It causes us no end of grief, as you are illustrating at this very moment with your comments.
>But hey, turn inward and let China and India win.
The US economy was doing amazing back when we were more isolationist. Switzerland does amazing despite rejecting memberships in multinational organizations like the EU and NATO. India is very explicit in its policy of "multi-alignment", i.e. avoiding big firm coalitions like EU/NATO.
You Europeans are so invested in the idea that America needs to protect Europe for America to succeed. As far as I can tell, this idea is total nonsense. Barely a shred of evidence is offered in favor of it.
China and India aren't exactly looking to form alternatives to NATO either. Why would a big country agree to defend a small country? It doesn't usually make sense from a national interest perspective.
>But don’t get mad when tariff situation with Europe etc. Is equalized over time and the American big tech is targeted to lessen the dependency.
You guys have been raiding big tech bank accounts for years now. You shouldn't be surprised by US retaliation. What goes around comes around. We can tell you're not actually our friends.
Oh my god. This is so funny. You truly have to stoop down to insults because you are so fragile? Who hurt you?
Sorry, the massive difference of "per capita" and "% of GDP". Which would be aligned assuming equal GDP.
Given GDP differences between the donor countries the differences aren't meaningful. But sorry, I should have specified as "% of GDP" where the US is a joke comparatively.
What is even more funny is that I have lived a year in the US, I have traveled all over the US. I have college credits in American history. You know the tiny High School course "AP US History"? Have you heard of it?
Which is also why I was not surprised when Trump won in 2016. I had seen the culture. I had seen the close mindedness.
> The US economy was doing amazing back when we were more isolationist.
You mean the roaring 20s right before the great depression? Because that is the last time the US was isolationist.
Seems like you are dreaming about something you don't have the slightest clue about.
Your response is very typical for the absolute craziness that has infected the US psyche. Donald Trump is not a one off, he is what Americans want.
It's pretty wild that you think AP US History - an introductory course aimed at school-aged children - gives you some great insight into "the US psyche". An insight you gleamed as... what, a high school exchange student?
>Oh my god. This is so funny. You truly have to stoop down to insults because you are so fragile? Who hurt you?
You were the one who started with dickish behavior. Don't dish it out if you can't take it.
>Given GDP differences between the donor countries the differences aren't meaningful. But sorry, I should have specified as "% of GDP" where the US is a joke comparatively.
Actually it does make a difference here. See the link I provided: https://old.reddit.com/r/europe/comments/1hd7aud/military_ai... Considering per capita, 8 months ago the US was more generous than almost all of Europe. Per capita is arguably the correct metric, since part of why US GDP is greater is because Americans work longer hours and take less vacation.
In any case, even if we consider the metric less favorable to the US (% of GDP), the US gives more as a fraction of GDP than almost every country outside Europe. If the US is a joke, than Spain, Ireland, France, and Italy are even funnier. We're very generous in every sense considering this isn't our war.
But since you call US aid a joke, I hope you won't miss it when it's gone. And I appreciate you confirming the points I've made, with your remark: Helping Ukraine gets us nothing but grief.
>You mean the roaring 20s right before the great depression? Because that is the last time the US was isolationist.
"Frustrated by French meddling in U.S. politics, Washington warned the nation to avoid permanent alliances with foreign nations and to rely instead on temporary alliances for emergencies... Washington’s remarks have served as an inspiration for American isolationism, and his advice against joining a permanent alliance was heeded for more than a century and a half."
The US economy mostly did great during that century and a half. Furthermore, the Great Depression was not simply caused by "isolationism". This is more intellectual sloppiness on your part.
I advocate a Swiss approach to foreign policy. That doesn't mean disengaging from other nations. It means not promising to help them with their problems.
Your continent, your problem. This is the approach that most of the world adopts towards Ukraine. The US was foolish to get involved. And we've been punished severely for it, by people like you. No more.
First, it's a great idea! The "introductory" speech is interesting then... the result is really disappointing :-(
You see: I'm French (and European). So, I don't necessarily consider that "Trump" is the center of the "World" (actually quite the opposite). However, on the "World" tab, 50% of the news are about "Trump". I would have thought that the aim of this kind of newsfeed is to challenge Trump tactic's of "newsroom saturation". In particular in that tab (Trump can be the alpha & omega for the USA tab)
It is not by choice, but because that is what all major world outlets are writing about (and Kagi News has super diverse selection of sources). What makes an event 'significant' is number of publishers writing about it.
Your feelings against news focused on America are valid, but there's no denying that the second Trump administration is such a world-shaking event, in a scale not foreseen by mainstream media or markets, that it would be weird not to have it everywhere. "President of the richest country in history unilaterally tariffs the entire world without approval of Congress" is, like it or not, a bigger headline than Europe's endless regulatory arguments
Actually, I dont need a "smart newsfeed" to hear about Trump. Smart is not about who is doing the show every day, it's about what's important and may be missed
Actually, you can't neither read that or the opposite from the graphs: it doesn't if the new code is for new functionalities or if it's to replace (without deleting) some old code.
But you're right: that would be a particularily useful information
All about time is about the use of time. So what is your use-case?
Time is either some "point in time" (like a date) or "duration". Your use-case is not the first one because a "point in time" is bound to a location (it 10am in Paris,FR ... not 10am). As a duration, it's only really usable as a duration inside the same 24h period... and for this everybody already has the second. The replacement of a base 86400 by a base 100000 does not really seem to me as a game-changer (not for computer and not really for humans either) so I don't think that anybody will take the time to use it somewhere.
I think that if you want to work on "time", you could help with 2 "hard" problems :
* calendars : the main PITA is more that months dont have the same length in days (not even for the same month in case of february) and neither the same number of "workable" days. Some calendars try to help by using 13 * 28 days month (each month=7 days weeks... so same count of workable days). That kind of calendar is used in finance I think but not really sure
* outside earth (meaning lunar, martian... really Universal) time duration & calendar : for now, our calendar and time mesurement is based on earth rotation on itself (night/day succession) and around the sun (seasons succession). These notions dont have a lot of sense on earth or on mars... or outside our solar system... So: should we use some kind of percentage of total revolution or that kind of thing ?
I think that tackling that kind of problem could be more a game changer that building a system to replace 1 second by a pulse with a duration of 0.864 second. YMMV
My thinking with GPTS wasn't so much about replacing the second for local durations within a 24-hour period – we're pretty well-served there. Instead, the core motivation is to tackle the headache of coordinating across those 24-hour periods and across geographical locations. This system isn't intended to change how individuals experience their local day or their existing timekeeping for daily activities. It's about providing a universal layer for seamless global synchronization across various critical domains.
Consider, for example, scenarios requiring global synchronization, such as satellite communications, distributed databases needing consistent transaction ordering, and the vast network of IoT devices where precise, location-agnostic timestamps are crucial. In financial transactions, especially high-frequency trading and global financial systems, GPTS could ensure all events are logged and processed in a single time format, eliminating discrepancies caused by time zones or even fractional-second differences.
For scientific applications, GPTS offers an ideal framework for experiments, astronomy, and global data collection where precise, universally synchronized timestamps are paramount, whether it's logging astronomical observations from different locations or coordinating particle physics experiments with ultra-fine timing requirements. Even in gaming and virtual environments, GPTS could provide the backbone for synchronizing events and interactions between players across the globe in real-time.
The most obvious use case is in global scheduling systems, where GPTS can act as a neutral time standard for coordinating events, meetings, and tasks across different time zones, drastically simplifying the current complex process. Furthermore, in data logging and monitoring across servers, sensors, and applications worldwide, GPTS would provide consistent timestamps that are far easier to parse and analyze.
The benefits extend to cutting-edge fields like machine learning and AI, where GPTS can simplify the handling of time-series data by providing a consistent, normalized time format. Looking beyond our planet, GPTS's inherent universality makes it well-suited for space exploration, providing a consistent time reference for logging events on spacecraft and planetary rovers, independent of Earth-based time zones. And as you mentioned earlier about other planets, the core concept could be adapted – imagine a "Martian Pulse" based on the Martian sol.
Even in established industries like media and content production, GPTS could ensure consistent time stamps for editing and synchronizing video, audio, and animations across globally distributed teams. Finally, in the maritime and aviation industries, where time zones can be irrelevant in open waters or airspace but precise coordination is vital, GPTS could serve as a crucial synchronization tool for air and sea traffic management.
You mentioned that a "point in time" is bound to a location, and that's precisely the problem GPTS aims to solve. Instead of saying "10 am in Paris," which requires mental gymnastics for someone in New York to understand the overlap, GPTS offers a single, universal reference. When I say "P050000," it's not 10 am somewhere; it's a specific, unambiguous moment in the global day, regardless of where anyone is.
While you see the base conversion as not a game-changer, I think the shift to a decimal system offers a subtle but significant advantage for human understanding, especially when dealing with fractions of a day. Knowing that P050000 is exactly halfway through the day, or P025000 is a quarter, is instantly clear without needing to remember the 60/60/24 divisions. For computer systems, while the base conversion itself might not be revolutionary, the universal nature of the timestamp across these use cases could be quite impactful.
Ultimately, you're right – adoption would be a massive hurdle. People are deeply tied to their local time cues. But the question I'm exploring is whether the increasing need for seamless global interaction across these diverse and critical applications might eventually make a system like this, or something similar, more appealing as a standard for global scheduling and digital systems where time zone ambiguity causes constant issues.
Seriously ???? Did you buy JD Vance on "free speech" in EU ? Actually, you should get better information (and a link to the EU Commission website is nothing if you dont read or understand it... it's only the old FUD)
Right now, the POTUS is so much reducing freedom in US that it's enough for him to say that it doesn't like something (like DEI) for a lot of companies to trash DEI in the hope to please him. And it's enough for the WaPo to change what will be the content of its "opinion" pages...
And EU is the one reducing freedom ?????? You should really wake up guys
You can find TONS of examples of people in Europe being jailed or having cops come to their house for something they said on social media. In some cases for things as simple as criticizing a politician.
Here’s a high profile one, but I can find you plenty more examples.
>On 25 May 2018, Robinson was arrested for a breach of the peace while live streaming outside Leeds Crown Court[170][174]
“Breach of peace” means he was saying something that they didn’t want him to say. This is a real curtailing of free speech.
>companies to trash DEI
DEI is often racist and many of its implementations in modern companies violate the civil rights act. Companies are correct to be ditching it because it poses a big risk for discrimination lawsuits.
I actually spoke with lawyers about this very recently and reverse discrimination lawsuits are a booming business right now because there are so many clear cut examples of violations of the civil rights act.
One example is Germany will now arrest you for insulting someone in public or online, including insulting politicians. The UK has had some questionable laws passed as well. Pockets of Europe has much weaker free speech protections than the US does, that much is for certain.
60 Minutes did a recent segment on German speech laws.
> Maja R was sentenced to a weekend in jail after her comments because she had a previous conviction for theft and had not attending the court hearing for the case.
I'm not supportive of defamation laws but clearly you (and this journalist) are sensationalizing what happened.
If this happened in America I don't think it would be an issue if a mob killed the judge and jury. Minimizing and justifying this at all should be a permanently disqualifying act. If you think that it's ok at any level, I don't want to share a country with you.
Everything I said was 100% correct, you (and gp) are trying to downplay Germany imprisoning a woman for speaking ill of a gang rapist who was given no jail time.
* that money will go to "big corp" who know and have to time to build application forms... even if they don't have the knowledge ("take the money and run")
* that money wont to the "real disruptors" that are small corps because they don't have time or knowledge to build application forms to get the money
There's typically much less red tape for smaller funding programs from the EU, so if you're only getting a couple hundred thousand you'll deal with a lot less requirements than a company getting tens of millions. There's still bureaucracy, but it's not as insurmountable as some make it out to be.
So you bought an iPhone because of its "(product) design" (how it fullfill your needs) and not about "marketing" (how to define the markets for a product and why people in these marketing will buy it...).
As I understand it, for example, there's markets for "broken watches": it can be
* broken luxury watches: to have a "rich man look" without paying the full price
* for hobbyist watch-repair
* for professional watch ressellers (after repair)
* for educational / museum...
As far as design is concerned, the watch is broken. But it can be sold if you find who will buy it and why... and that's marketing
Jobs was a great designer too... (and/or knew how to hire great designers and let them get out the best of them)
> So you bought an iPhone because of its "(product) design" (how it fullfill your needs)
Sure. I guess my point is that its "product design" was essentially "it's a PDA with more modern technology". It did not look extra-terrestrial back then, it really looked like a better PDA.
In other examples, I have seen product people saying that they had the "vision" of connecting their app to the cloud. Or more recently, "visionaries" will suggest integrating LLMs in everything they can describe (they would suggest writing an LLM driver in the kernel if they knew the word "kernel"). And then, maybe, one such integration will work, and they will say "I had this vision that we should integrate LLM here" and forget the part where 99% of their ideas were worthless, and the one that work was actually not a revolutionary idea but just something that technically worked.
Again, not to say that Steve Jobs was not good. He certainly brought a lot. But sometimes I feel like we overdo it a bit.
Lots of people, including Apple with the Newton, tried to build a really great PDA - some people loved them, most found them too complex and slow.
I'd argue that when the iPhone originally shipped ( remember on shipping it didn't have an App store or even a custom app story - Steve said just write a web app ), it was simply a phone, a web browser, and a music player.
In my view it wasn't trying to be a PDA at all - all that came later.
> it was simply a phone, a web browser, and a music player.
Sure, but again not revolutionary. I had a Nokia that was a phone, a web browser and a music player. The iPhone was just better at that, but not very different in the end.
Sure everything is incremental - but I think you are missing the key feature of the iPhone that really changed how you interacted with it.
A really great multi-touch screen - sure there were touch devices before - and even multitouch ones, but my recollection was they would both miss/confuse inputs and have significant input lag and most were single input - the iPhone just worked as you'd expect - it felt magical. 'You got me at scrolling'
If you take a great touch experience, and a software user interface rather than buttons, then you have a platform with infinitely reconfigurable interaction modes.
Form is function. The user interface ( in the broadest sense of how you interact with the computer ) is key. They delivered touch that worked, in a form factor you could hold.
One of the reasons ChatGPT feels revolutionary is it has changed how people interact with their computers - creating a new conversational mode - ( and sure Eliza goes back a long way as well - but that was a toy ).
I wonder why... maybe because it look like US replaced some "moral values" (not talking about "woke values" here, just plain "humanistic values" like in Human Rights Declaration) with "bottom line values" :-)
Hmm.
> Donald Trump had a fiery phone call with Danish prime minister Mette Frederiksen over his demands to buy Greenland, according to senior European officials.
> The president has said America pays $200bn a year 'essentially in subsidy' to Canada and that if the country was the 51st state of the US 'I don’t mind doing it', in an interview broadcast before the Super Bowl in New Orleans
The OP mentioned: "This provision requires large online platforms to provide researchers with immediate access to publicly available data on their platforms in order to assess systemic risks"
> So if I run a large online shop I need to provide an API so anyone can download all of my product descriptions and prices?
> If I publish an online magazine, I need to provide an API so anyone can download all the content I produce?
How is your online shop a "systemic risk" ? Moreover "large online platforms" is a clearly defined term... not your usual website
So please: keep cool... We, Europeans, are not always stupid bureaucracy lovers. Sometimes we also have good ideas to try to preserve our shared freedom and rights and democracy :-)
"Companies that are found to be using any of the above AI applications in the EU will be subject to fines, regardless of where they are headquartered. They could be on the hook for up to €35 million (~$36 million), or 7% of their annual revenue from the prior fiscal year, whichever is greater."
US did a real gift to the world with "extra-territorial" laws: now EU use it everywhere too !!!! :-)
Sooooo... the GAFAM either will have to "limit" some of their AI system when used in EU (NOT including EU citizen that may be abroad, but including foreign citizen in the EU) or to be fined.
And I guess that this kind of fines may accumulate with GDPR for example...
