• 0 Posts
  • 81 Comments
Joined 8 months ago
cake
Cake day: November 25th, 2024

help-circle



  • After rapidly falling behind in the global rush to artificial intelligence, Brussels has a fresh chance at an economic success story in the emerging field of quantum technology. But in a new strategy to be released Wednesday, the EU will warn that promising homegrown quantum tech risks being snatched up to make money abroad as the bloc continues to lag in turning research into “real-market opportunities,” To many, it’s déjà vu. Europe is generally best in class in the research that precedes revolutionary technologies, as it was in artificial intelligence. But the U.S. and China leapfrogged the continent in building the companies to deploy mass-market applications.

    My feeling is that the EU has often taken a protectionist approach to the challenges from new tech. That is, the EU will pass legislation to protect existing dominant businesses, even if that is not necessarily in the best interests of Joe Public. I’m thinking of how France banned Google from scraping news sites to show in its news summaries, and also how roadblocks were put in the way of Google maps in order to protect the business models of existing satnav companies such as Garmin and TomTom (namely selling “map packs” for download rather than distributing always-up-to-date map data online).

    Those attempts to protect the old guard, the status quo, were unsuccessful, and if anything, encouraged EU companies to stick with old and out-dated business models longer than they should have. So has the EU now learnt that it is a mistake to try to hobble new technology just to protect existing institutions? Some institutions don’t deserve to be saved, no matter how big they are, when technology offers better solutions, be they cheaper, more direct (fewer middlemen), and/or more powerful.

    The EU has had its fair share of successful tech startups, so hopefully the EU will now be more willing to embrace the “disruptive” side of modern technology. I genuinely hope so.


  • pleasing about buying a Windows 11 laptop, and immediately replacing Windows

    there really is! I just got a new laptop, and it really wanted me to go through the Lose-dows setup wizard crap. That wasn’t so much an MS thing, rather the laptop’s idiot-proofing. For instance, I had to hold the power button for a full 10 seconds to get it to hard power-off, and getting a boot menu so I could boot from USB was not as easy as it could’ve been.

    But those initial frustrations were replaced by sheer glee once I did finally get to a linux prompt, and using fdisk was able to nuke all those horrible Win partitions from orbit.





  • old world, which I got for €10 in the GOG sale. I wanted something like the OG civ experience, where you slowly build up your civilisation, creating a network of cities with good transport links, strong agriculture supporting healthy growth, then, when the bloodlust gets too strong to ignore, building small military forces to go out and crush your neighbours.

    I’m enjoying myself so far. The game does seem like a more straightforward and casual Civ - the learning curve is so gentle and you don’t feel like you’re overloaded with admin details that you can’t keep track of. Last time I played Civ, it was Civ 6 and it was fun until a rival civilisation plonked a city down right in the middle of one of my own conglomerations. Perfect excuse for kicking some ass, so I assembled a little force and invaded the city to kick it out. Unfortunately you can’t just declare war and get away with it, and there were a lot of side-effects to contend with, such as becoming a pariah on the world stage affecting trade. War was just not economically viable, and while that might be realistic for some time periods, it just wasn’t the game I wanted to play.

    So I am happy with old world. It’s pretty much what I wanted so far - but will the simpler mechanics make the game less replayable? It may well do, but I’m enjoying it for now. Above all, what I like about these sorts of games - zero time pressure. I can take as long as I like on each turn, there’s absolutely no rush to decide what to do, I’m free to bimble about and make sure I’ve not forgotten anything.


  • well, maybe it helps to know that companies don’t actually want their brand name to become a generic term, even if it seems like a sign of immense success. The brand name loses its distinctiveness as a trademark. Essentially, the public starts to perceive the brand name as the name of the thing itself, rather than a specific brand of that thing.

    For instance, in the UK, people still say things like, “I’m going to hoover the front room” to mean they’re going to clean it with a vacuum cleaner. Notice that the brand of vacuum cleaner doesn’t actually matter in this case - most people own non-Hoover vacuums, yet will still say, “love, get me the hoover out the cupboard”.

    Other brands that this has happened to include Aspirin, Cellophane, Band-Aid.

    So maybe we should actually start saying, “I’m going to google this with Qwant”. In principle, we’d be undermining and devaluing the brand.








  • A collective can be a great way to run a company, for some cases. I lived with a girl who worked at a cafe that was run as a collective - it meant that people had a fair say in decisions that affected them. They could vote on their own wages, working conditions, and no one was barking out orders bossing them around. The owner was an old-school left-winger who was doing this out of pure idealism. He was still the one with the financial risk, he dealt with banks, ensured taxes were dealt with, and all the other tasks involved in running a business such as that.