Obviously, but QA is based on statistic.
You need to destroy or damage the item tested If you want to check how a steel cable hold, You test it to the limit but after that you cannot use it anymore. So you get another one with the same specification. But if this one is defective for some reason, you would never know it until it fail.
That realistically only leaves inadequate maintenance or sabotage. Both aren’t “tragic accidents”.
Even if you have adequate maintenance , there is always the possibility you use a defective part.
But 7 Seaters have a clear purpose and are mostly used for transporting multiple people. SUVs usually only have five seats, have crappy emissions and mostly seniors drive them in Germany.
It is not that the 5-seaters version of the same model were/was that much smaller in size than a SUV. What I noted is that people think SUV are bigger because they looks bigger but once you go to check the measures you discover that they are not that big, in fact there bigger cars that are not classified as SUV nor PickUp.
And I suspect that my old 1.5 liter 7 Seater was, emission wise, worst than my new hydrid 1.4 liters SUV.
Why the hell do senior citizens need SUVs?
I would point on the fact that since the SUV is a little bit higher they can enter and exit more easily than on a sedan or a minivan.
The difference between a stationwagon and an SUV is that a stationwagon is usually narrower and uses space efficiently.
Narrower maybe, but I doubt it use the space efficiently. Let’s say that a stationwagon is just a 7 Seaters without the 2 additional places and a little lower.
SUVs on the other hand don’t use space efficiently and the bonnets are a lot higher than with stationwagons. https://www.fleetnews.co.uk/news/road-safety-fears-from-increasing-car-bonnet-height
That can be a problem, I agree, even if I think that in the impact with a person the height of the bonnet is a relative problem in respect of the force tranfered from the car to the person.
Again, you don’t need an SUV for equipment unless it is professionally. If you need the space, fold over seats or buy a stationwagon.
I disagree. In the end you are telling me that I just need a car that is about 10 cm narrower (if even that) than my current one with the same load capacity (in volume). It does not make any sense if the problem is the occupied space.
It’s not a slippery slope.
Until it will become.
SUVs and pickups are a problem in European inner cities, which is why some cities put restrictions on them such as Paris.
SUV are not the problem, they are just an easy target since often they are seen, true of false that it can be, as the car used by rich and arrogant people (and at the beginning it was true).
To be clear, if you think SUV should be banned because their size, you need to ban also the 7-seaters car that often are bigger than a SUV. For example, my old Scenic 7-seater was a little bigger than my actual car which is classified as SUV, so where is the logic of banning a SUV with the pretense that it is too big for the city but allowing me to drive around with a even bigger car ?
I would agree if you say “we must ban all the car longer than X and wider than Y”.
Also you don’t need a SUV for free time.
And how can be so sure ?
If you need the space, buy a stationwagon.
It is an option, but the are normally bigger than SUV (at least longer), so you exchange a SUV for a, sometimes, bigger car, so again, what is the point of allowing me to use a bigger car instead of a SUV ?
If you want to go offroading, buy a MTB or MTX instead. Also most SUVs are pretty crappy offroad vehicles.
No offroading, just need a lot of space for equipment.
That’s stupid. I may not need it for work, but I may need it for free time activities (people often forget that SUV mean Sport Utility Vehicle)
Following your logic you could also ban sedans for singles, or minivan for families without children or car entirely for people who work from home.
Also being 1000km from the frontline in another country is a massive advantage. It means Russia can not easily bomb it.
Yes, but it is not the 1000km from the frontline the point, it is the fact that it is in another country. The plant could be 50 Km from the frontline but as long as it is in another country (Germany in this case) Russia cannot hit it, even if they are able to.
True, there is always a “we made a mistake” story but honestly I would be very carefull to make such “mistake”.
Because he is NATO secretary ?
It is inevitable. If you want to sell to EU you need to follow EU’s rules.
And UK local market did not justify a dedicated production line, too small
Especially the issue of housing asylum seekers (“statushouders”) is a big issue in the Netherlands as there is a situation where Dutch taxpayers are in a competition with foreigners whose rents are paid for by the Dutch taxpayers. This is obviously a touchy subject and a treasure trove for the right wing nut jobs.
I would say that this is a issue for everyone that could think a little.
And I would add that the problem is not that this can be an treasure trove for the right wing (which probably is) but that everyone else is, mostly, denying the problem even exist.
Cheaper maybe, but I don’t bet on faster for the passenger. Train station normally are in the city center (or really near), airport are relatively far from the city.
it is difficult to make people leave the current ones.
That comes on top. Without legal risks we would have 10 alternatives and one would succeed.
There are Lemmy and Mastodon. There is/was Diaspora and Minds and probably a lot more, both as Facebook replacement and Twitter/Instagram replacement. There are alternatives for Youtube.
So, cleared that some alternative is present, I would argue that the switch is the biggest problem.
before Facebook there was MySpace and after Facebook there will be something else.
No, because these legal obligations are the moat that defends Facebook.
Assuming the moat will will never change, yes. Maybe.
Facebook is an advertising platform first. That’s almost impossible to recreate.
Like it was MySpace before.
It’s pretty far from a win. It’s backing down to a bully because you know a fight would hurt you both badly, and that you still need the help of this bully against another.
Right, the fight can hurt both sides, but capitulating today will only end with another capitulation tomorrow.
Shit sucks, but that’s where we are now.
Well, we as EU could have simply let Trump know that we are a market they cannot leave.
Put a 15% additional taxes on every penny the US tech companies make in EU… and it is not really hard to do it even without them collaborating.
It’s not prohibitive but an obstacle. Facebook can build neural networks to automate legal obligations and it can hire lawyers to minimize damage when they fail.
Yes, it is true, but I would love to see how it will work
Everybody can try though to build a new social media but nobody will.
You are right, but I suspect that you don’t understand the real reason, which is not the rules but the fact that a social media need users and it is difficult to make people leave the current ones. After all, before Facebook there was MySpace and after Facebook there will be something else.
Tighter moderation and copyright requirements can stop everything.
True, but that would be valid for everyone. So as it could stop an emerging social media it could also stop an estabilished social media, and EU historically does not go after the small fishes.
I am sure that you understand that if EU put up tighter moderation and copyright requirements the first social media to be tanked would be Facebook and not the emerging social media.
The USA had excempted platforms from holding them responsible to allow broad innovation by everybody. The EU does the opposite and ads more requirements.
Not always.
But the way the USA went create a grey area were the social media can legally say “I am not responsible for what the users post” and on the other hand the “the platform is mine and I can decide what goes on it”, which in my opinion is a worse situation since now the moderation is in the hand of a company.
We had many examples of social media that on one hand say they are excempted and on the other say that they can decide what goes on the site. Sorry but it not works this way: you are responsible for everything on your site and then you can decide what goes on it or you are not responsible and then you cannot decide what goes on it (granted that is legal). You cannot have both ways.
Nothing that kills an established company but it’s deadly for anything but the most serious startups.
I disagree. If Facebook would be held responsible for its contents like a startup, I would bet that it would be deadly for Facebook and not the startup. Look at the GDPR, there were reasons why these companies have fought tooth and nail against it.
The EU must know about the US excemption. They are not ignorant so they chose to not create competition and to leave that market to the US.
Which, again, does nothing to stop someone to try to build a new social media.
I only stated the obvious: in EU the mentality is different and it is not that easy to get money to have a company going for years without making enough money to pay its cost (infrastuctures, servers, people atc), there are not the VC’s that are present in US.
If that make me part of the industry…
One problem is that a solution isn’t obvious. The copyright industry hasn’t succeeded in making a truly effective DRM system.
I would argue that they really don’t want since they know all too well that “1 pirated copy less equal 1 more copy sold” is completely false.
An additional technical problem is that European data rights are complicated. You need to determine who has what rights in the data. AI may be very helpful here.
No, European data rights are not complicated, that is a false myth (source, someone who currently work to provide certifications about the GDPR compliance and other regulations, not myself), unless you want to do something borderline. What the GDPR say is, basically, “you need to ask only the necessary data to provide the service and keep them only the time you need to provide the service (if no other laws say otherwise) and you need to keep them secure”. And explain why you need additional data, eventually, and what do you want to do with them.
We could argue about the “you need to keep them secure” eventually.
But the real problem is not technical. The Americans build services that people want to use. European policymakers don’t care if anyone wants to use it. The only concern is to make sure that the wrong use can be stopped. It’s enshittified by design.
Maybe true, but I think that it is more a mentality problem.
All the social networks are not born from some American policymaker, they were born from some guy that build it and then become a company. Or from a company that had the idea to build it and can afford to work at a loss even for years.
Sounds like you want an E2E encrypted group chat rather than social media.
His idea yes.
But having a social network where something can be viewed by everyone and something only by your friends is not bad, think something like a federated social that is a middle ground between facebook and patreon, maybe using a public key infrastructure to decide who could see your not public post.
Here’s an unpopular opinion: This won’t happen because the policymakers don’t want it to happen.
Which is irrelevant since they cannot ban someone to build one. If you build a social media there is nothing the policy maker can do to stop you. Granted, you need to follow a series of rules, but that’s it. And they cannot tighten the rule too much, since they apply to everyone.
It’s fundamentally opposed to what they want. And I’m not spinning some conspiracy tale here. Listen…
You are right but for the wrong reason. Currently (and sometimes foolishly) EU don’t want to have one big social media like Facebook because in their view it hurts the competition and ultimately it damage the users.
To a copyright person, this would mean functioning DRM. It means complete control over what happens to their content, regardless of where and how it is stored. They have the law on their side and the policymakers. Mind that the media is part of the copyright industry and they have outsize influence over public opinion. As far as they are concerned, the problem with Big Tech is that they are not paid enough for their rights.
I would consider that the perfect solution.
I mean, media companies get absolute control over their content by default (given the protocol) ? Cool that means that also the user get absolute control over his content by default given the protocol. So, maybe we would not be able anymore to pirate a movie but on the other hand a new OpenAi would not be able to freely train their model on our contents and make money with it. (and as benefit, this would set the long discussion about how many money media companies loses to piracy)
The ideal European internet is one that has DRM built-in from the bottom so that everyone can exercise their legal rights under copyright law, the GDPR, the data act, and possibly others.
I don’t see this as a bad thing. I decide what to publish on a social media and I would like to be able to stop someone from stealing it.
I think you confuse “published” with “public domain”
A freewheeling federated network is legally problematic. Even insofar that it is legal, it is fundamentally opposed to what policymakers and much of the public want. Free speech is an American value and emphatically not European.
No, it is not legally problematic, unless you consider legally problematic to not be able to steal something I published and deal as yours.
What could be legally problematic is to track the **responsability **of something published (that could be illegal somewhere) because you should unhinging the mindset that the platform must do something, which is accepted everywere else, instead of holding the **author **responsible for what **he **publish.
Obviously.
Ok, so you have two cables, one principal and the other one as redundancy. The main one snap and in doing so damage the backup cable (or any other part that must use the backup cable) more than what falls within safety limits, so even the backup cable (or mechanism) fail. Then ? (I personally see something like that btw)
Look, I am not saying that there could not have be some problem with lack of maintenance, it looks this way, but that even fail safe and redundancy have limits to what they can do. And since some tests are destructive for the tested item you can only trust the fact that every item would be built the same way at the same quality level, which do not remove the possibility that one item end up being defective.