And yet whenever the EU is brought up around here its "draconian" regulations are blamed for stagnating tech innovation. At least there are governments that try to protect their citizens from the habitual privacy and rights violations by Big Tech.
People were borderline out for blood on such a defiant worldview
Depending on where you’d end up - you’ll feel right at home.
If jobs are limited, then it feels a bit disingenuous to use this as an example. Please correct me.
But remote work in software development is pretty widely accepted in Germany, too.
That said, especially in the countryside, there are a lot of companies actually building or producing stuff. And they need IT services, too. Any food batch that's not properly accounted for in your warehousing software is effectively unsellable and, thus, a pure loss.
Huh? That is far above the average developer salary. Even in a big city this would only be plausible in a highly demanded specialty and high experience level. Far from average.
Sounds like an outlier to me, unless you can provide some statistics.
5000€ average would seem about right if it was pre tax & social security -- perhaps OP got these confused and it's actually the pre-tax income.
The highlighted average range is 5k to 6k gross, which comes out as 4.2k to 5.2k net.
When will the industry reckon?
No one forced site owners to suck out personal information from customers to sell them to the highest bidder. A normal, human respecting website doesn't even need a consent banner.
People are normalizing egregious behavior.
See their cases against Meta, for example.
There's lots of dumb things "people in general" believe. The infamous list on Wikipedia[0] is just the tip of an iceberg. Everyone is vulnerable to this; if you aren't occasionally discovering and correcting such dumb "broadly known" things in your own beliefs, you aren't paying attention.
--
[0] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_common_misconceptions
Maybe it would be time for you to reflect on how much you implied in that simple sentence. None of what you said I implied or desired to do. It was simply my comment and opinion and contribution to the comment.
Unfortunately, normal people do have to be reminded of the basics, because they seem statistically unable to process nuance in any argument they already have an opinion on. The whole idea of winning an argument is a kind of weird normie thing, a sportsball game with words, which is fine as entertainment, but problematic when it gets confused for reasoning about things.
Arguments as soldiers. Win at any cost, doesn't matter if what's said now contradicts what came before.
I didn't know about the idea until someone else explained it to me; talking about it with my much older brother, he had noticed it spontaneously.
And if they don't comply it is a ridiculous and unprecedented fine of 10% of global revenue.
"unclear obligations":
- do not use people's data without their consent
- disclose and document your training data
Of course it's "unclear" to companies like Facebook who opted everyone on their platform in to training their AI models by default.
Apple's "AI" is coming to all users everywhere eventually. As many of their products it's rolled out to US, English-speaking, rest of the world, in that order. And it won't even fully ship to the US until sometime next year. Their "boohoo EU" is marketing and PR bullshit aimed at gullible morons.
> And if they don't comply it is a ridiculous and unprecedented fine of 10% of global revenue.
It's a fine up to 10% of global revenue. And that number can only be reached when the company willingly and willfully continues to break the law
The (AI) Act leaves too much to the discretion of the Commission, secondary legislation or voluntary codes of conduct
https://ecnl.org/news/packed-loopholes-why-ai-act-fails-prot...
This is the problem with the DMA and AI acts. The specifics are not written into law. Everything is left up to the EU Commissioner to decide as each case presents itself. Which makes it impossible for companies to predict what their decisions will be. And why would they take the risk with such massive fines on the table.
This kind of regulatory uncertainty is toxic to business.
Also Apple didn't just not release Apple Intelligence in the EU. They've geo-blocked it so you specifically can't use it even in English. They would only do this for legal reasons.
If all specifics were written into the law:
- people would complain about government overreach and that government dictates technological solutions
- no laws would ever be written because there are so many aspects to consider, and it's impossible to predict the future
Facebook, for instance, could easily start with complying with the two bullet points I posted. They don't, and they fight the EU in courts claiming they have god-given right to user data.
And yet you pretend that these companies are somehow victims. They are not.
> Which makes it impossible for companies to predict what their decisions will be.
This is PR and marketing bullshit. EU Commission literally talks to all the involved and interested parties, listens to their positions and invites them to present theirs.
> They would only do this for legal reasons.
Ahahhaha. Of course not.
This approach works just fine in Australia which is renowned for having the best consumer protection regime in the world. It's just harder to do in EU/US when there isn't an appetite for pro-consumer regulations.
And it's hilarious that you think that having to talk to the EU Commission to determine what is the law is somehow good. Businesses need certainty and predictability. Everything the EU regime is not.
No, it's not hilarious. This is literally what industry says it wants: instead of dictates by uncaring government you get a dialog with the industry that shapes the policy and lets the authorities adjust their approach.
They are a trillion dollar company, it’s not like they don’t know what is and isn’t allowed by the law.
Since (a) they are a provider and not a deployer of AI systems and (b) they are no classified as one of the DMA gatekeepers.