Being one of the 3rd party developers to create apps for a nascent platform is a great position for your business to be in. It just so happened that Google Glass didn't work out. But imagine being an early developer for Android or iOS.
Waymo seems to be operating smoothly in San Francisco. OpenAI's headquarters are also there. Many AI startups are also based in San Francisco, California.
Right, but you might want to look at the regulations their lawmakers have been proposing. If put in place it would put a stop to that pretty much immediately.
It is trivial to find examples of market-destroying bills introduced to legislatures in any time period in history. What makes bills newsworthy is when they have meaningful support.
Nearly all the services mentioned here were acquisitions or had strong competitors at the time of their launches. It is undeniable that Google has made these into quality products and led to their dominant position in their fields. However, Google's existence was necessary for none of these classes of products.
This is an incomplete understanding of the stakeholders in these rulings.
1. The goal of the fines is to act as a deterrent and to encourage companies to get back into compliance.
2. The arbiters aren't operating in a vacuum. Bankrupting services that the citizens of a country rely on is unpopular and not in service of goal #1.
3. We know that this is the case because Uber and other ride sharing services were able to violate the law and convince voters to have the law changed to permit these services.
4. Fines impacting net revenue are dealt with seriously by companies when they are adequately large, e.g. 10% of net revenue. Compliance departments are not funded as a job creation or charity exercise. When companies report earnings, these fines frequently determine whether earnings guidance is achieved. This impacts company officers' compensation.
tl;dr, you passionately believe in these views, but it is not one held by the majority. Your minority view should not be the basis of public policy.
> Fines impacting net revenue are dealt with seriously by companies when they are adequately large, e.g. 10% of net revenue.
That's financial risk.
For criminal risk, a change to existing laws would have to be made; they currently carry only civil penalties to the organizations involved. I think that those laws would be popular. They would have to be carefully crafted to narrowly target behavior without unacceptably impairing capital investment and business formation. That would negatively impact the quality of life of the countries' residents.
I went to a Subaru dealer here in Calgary and asked about the Solterra with a friend present.
The salesman bluntly told me to get a Tesla and half heartedly tried to get me to look at a hybrid. I wouldn't have believed it if I wasn't there with a friend.
In retrospect, I am happier with my used Model 3 than an electric car from a company with no intent on winning the market.
In a 2-door vehicle, you can just lean over and roll up the window and toggle the lock on the other door. If you've ever had an old car then you'll know the annoyance of a broken electrical motor.
Yeah, it would be terrible to offer the citizens of Chad, Mali, Tunisia, Libya, etc an opportunity to get revenue. Only Western democracies like Norway and Australia are allowed to extract substances!
It would slow down the operation of the organization. In this case, it's counterproductive to the director's aims. The director's goal is to maximize grant funding; a functional bureaucracy is essential for that goal. There is nothing the director can do to increase the funding, which is being cut by an external source. The legality of the funding cut is unclear, but the director has no agency in the outcome of a legal challenge.
It's a silly novelty website. Maybe this no longer happens, but for a period of time, browsers would present a warning that the website was insecure. The user would need to switch to https by updating the address. It was inconvenient.
Those videos are occurring because of a major power hypocritically flouting the rules-based international order. In spite of it, not because of it. We know the counterfactual of the rules-based order. It's nonstop European warfare in the 19th and the early 20th centuries.
Maybe not nonstop warfare, but there was still a lot of violence going on. European powers were engaged in more-or-less nonstop warfare overseas in their empires, but maybe you're excusing that because those weren't in Europe.
In Europe itself, you have quite major conflicts in the Franco-Prussian War, Austro-Prussian War, and the Crimean War, plus more minor conflicts around the unification (more like conquest) of Italy, the independence of various Balkan states from the Ottoman Empire starting with Greece, Prussia's war against Denmark. And then you have all of the internal civil wars or strife people usually don't call outright wars, but in the 19th century, were often quite violent. The Revolutions of 1848, for example. Or France switching governments four times (July Monarchy, Second Republic, Second Empire, Third Republic) after the restored monarchy, all of them quite violent transitions.
Not to mention the fact that the stresses of urbanization and concomitant social changes provoked a lot of resistance from the lower classes, which was often quite violent. It's not until well into the 20th century that major strikes don't involve lots of bloodshed!
19th century Europe is only peaceful relative to the quite bloody conflicts that bookended the time period, which themselves rank among the bloodiest conflicts in all of human history.
Greek War of Independence (1821-1832)
French invasion of Spain (1823)
Russo-Persian War (1826-1828)
Russo-Turkish War (1828-1829)
Hungarian Revolution and War of Independence (1848-1849)
First Schleswig War (1848-1851)
Wars of Italian Independence (1848–1866)
Crimean War (1854–1856)
Second Schleswig War (1864)
Austro-Prussian War (1866)
Franco-Prussian War (1870-1871)
Russo–Turkish War (1877–1878)
Serbo-Bulgarian War (1885)
Greco–Turkish War (1897)
Together, that adds up to multiple decades of war.
I think https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/deaths-in-wars-project-ma... puts this in perspective. The period from 1815 to 1915 was a much more peaceful period measured by deaths in war than 1915 to 2015, though 1975 forward seems like a return to that level (but world population is so much larger now that it's even better than it seems).
Counting the years when there was a war anywhere is Europe, you'll end up with a large number.
I'm counting how often each country was at war. Several countries had no wars, and even the most war torn country didn't fight for more than 10-15 years.
That's really not true if you look at the European neighbors and European territories of Russia and the Ottoman Empire.
Also not true of Spain, which spent a lot of time in internal warfare (with occasional outside interventions.)
But, yes, excluding those, most of the countries in Europe were too busy fighting endless wars throughout their (or their allies’ or enemies’) colonial empires (whether to expand them, defend them, or put down or assist rebellions in them) to bother fighting other powers in Europe in that period.
I've listed most of the conflicts that occurred on the European continent (I've omitted several Russian wars, and there's a couple more civil wars I've also omitted). And some of that is because I'm doing wildcards rather than trying to, e.g., track down every single Balkan conflict in the 19th century.
If you think I've included most of the conflicts that involved European powers on one side... no. Not even close. This is an era when Europeans are essentially in a permanent state of war with everybody they consider inferior to themselves. And, albeit at the tale end of this era, it's still the era when private companies assert the right to go to war against other people. Don't forget that non-European wars can still leave indelible imprints on the European psyche--the Boer War and the Russo-Japanese War both had massive implications for their home countries, and it's ultimately the Italian invasion of Libya that kicks off World War I.
> Probably the most peaceful century in the history of Europe.
World War II is not yet 100 years gone, but there's not really going to be any question that that the 100 years after WWII will be the most peaceful 100 years in recorded history. For comparison's sake, you're probably looking at like roughly a Napoleonic Wars' amount of death in conflict on the European continent between the Napoleonic Wars and WWI. And as I've mentioned, you're really lucking out that there's just under 100 years between two of the bloodiest conflicts of European history, so you get to pick a 100 year time period without the largest conflicts. If the time period were instead 110 years, now you'd have to confront the bloodbath not only of WWI but also the Russian Civil War.
Also I don't know exactly when they started having police and gendarmerie (riot police) but probably not until 20th century, so the usual response to an angry mob was to bring the army. And army doesn't know much but shoot. Hence, lots of bloody massacres.
> The time between the Napoleon wars and WW1 (1815-1914) was very peaceful in Europe.
If, when you talk about "Europe", you exclude Spain and also Greece, the Balkans, and much of Eastern Europe, sure, the powers in "Europe" did most off their fighting in colonial wars in the period rather than at home (they did a quite a lot of fighting in colonial wars, though.)
