See the talk "Recent TPM Security Enhancements to the Linux Kernel" by a Microsoft engineer (I find this ironic) for recent Linux TPM security enhancements. New features add some transport security.
You can over-provision your own baremetal resources 20x and it will be still cheaper than cloud. The capex talking point is just that, a talking point.
Your spend in the first year on AWS is going to be very close to zero for something like a SaaS shop.
Nor can you possibly scale in-house baremetal fast enough if you hit the fabled hockey stick growth. By the time you sign a colocation contract and order hardware, your day in the sun may be over.
GPC does not meet GDPR's requirements and cannot be used for gaining consent under GDPR. There already has been a browser signal in design that meets GDPR requirements for consent, but it was ignored. The industry instead rallied behind GPC.
To the poster, Europe does not exercise outsized antitrust influence in the US. Many of these companies have their tax residency in the EU. There is no need to "deny" anything. If the company gets fined and it refuses to pay the fine, EU seizes the money in one of many bank accounts in Europe.
Europe absolutely exercises significant antitrust influence upon US firms.
In practice, yes, as you point out: US firms must have assets in Europe to compete effectively.
But even if they didn't, Europe could deny access to the European market. So there is no reason to try and minimize surface in Europe. e.g. Apple has to comply with European antitrust rulings about app store access, even if Apple were to just sell their product to third party distributors in Europe and not have any presence in Europe.
Not really, Apple would just get customers the same way they’re sold in any other part of the world that doesn’t officially have iPhones (i.e. Russia), the EU doesn’t have the authority to seize shipments purely based on a violation of the DMA.
Do you have a cite for that? That would be very surprising if so, the intent behind the RTB stuff is that it's anonymized. I really don't think this is correct.
Producers should be required to make disclosures in officially recognized boards/gazettes before substantially changing quality/composition/recipe/materials/function of any good. Make it 3 to 6 months. A consumer should not be screwed for buying an inferior product for the same price because a producer decided to reduce quality to increase margins. It's a form of information asymmetry that leads to inefficiency in markets.
This works even more easily if the product already needs to be registered in some gov't registry. For example books and with the case of substituting good quality paper with worse quality paper (less gsm or such).
You’re missing the point, either intentionally or unintentionally.
No matter how many lines of defense in depth you have, protecting the surface area of a product or service is always going to be harder than attacking it.
https://youtu.be/WK7NERQXh4I
reply