Only if the CCP doesn't like you or decides that it doesn't like you because you are more valuable as an enemy. Otherwise it's no big deal because politics in a communist country does not get done without bribes in one form or another. Honest players are not to be found in a communist country. Government is like open source. The more open you are, the less likely there is going to be shenanigans.
Incorrect. Maybe you familiar with the high cost of living areas. There are similar $5 deals in the United States. The US is a big place and has many, many businesses offering very similar deals.
How are you defining monopolies? Companies that are successful? Because you seem to be defining most US companies that do business in Europe as monopolies. It seems that this is the kind of mindset that has kept Europe behind. Too bad. Regulation that keeps out competition or needlessly puts obstacles in place is bad for the consumer, bad for employment, and bad for the general standard of living. And If you think US companies are unregulated then you haven't seen the 20 ft of federal CFR regulations together with the regulations of 50 different states that US companies have to deal with everyday.
My thoughts exactly. At most you get a surplus of cheap third tier AI. Which may or may not be helpful. And or a bunch of unused unmaintained deteriorating data center buildings.
Please explain. Your comment reveals your lack of understanding of corporate law and the benefits of one state versus the other. And smart companies are going to incorporate in Texas anyway and it has nothing to do with taxes. More to do with corporate governance.
It has nothing to do with condoning. It has everything to do with stating what the law is And what is or is what is not required to comply. And what is and what is not permitted under the Constitution. Whether you like it or not has nothing to do with anything.
I don't think fastmail is going to help you. They are subject to legal requirements too and probably American jurisdiction also despite what their particular position is. https://www.fastmail.com/blog/fastmails-servers-are-in-the-u.... People love to hate Google but they're just doing what any corporation subject to law is going to do.
Is that really what you're concerned about that somebody would ask a soft ball question about proposed solutions? Why is questioning the buildup of brush a crazy idea? It's been a mainstream concern for years. I really don't think it's healthy for any inquiry to propose a particular mindset and shut down alternative thinking. It doesn't seem very scientific or intelligent to me.
Knowing that Google will do what changes your calculation? Abide by the law? I would be surprised if Google's so-Called promise to notify the subject of the inquiry was not couched in terms of being subject to legal requirements. Companies are not activists, and they shouldn't be expected to act like activists.
Some of them supported them because they were pressured into it. Grocery bans of bags and payment etc. are a PITA for customers. No business in it's right mind would force that on their customer unless they were required to. Passing the cost on to their customer is not an issue. Supporting laws requiring payment etc. are cost benefit analysis. Is it worth fighting the bad PR etc or go along. But obviously they wouldn't have provided the bags in the first place if it was not a competitive benefit to them.
All the smart people said fossil fuels bad and renewables were the answer. Now not so much? Nuke is good but why not try lighter regulation, less central planning, and less trying to be smarter than the market and science. Stifling energy innovation and flexibility with central planning is never going to get efficient clean and sufficient energy to support a healthy growing economy that leads to growing standard of living for all.
The DOH and DOW have a lot of resources. And I would guess the DOW has a lot of intelligence resources and most likely the DOH also I mean it is their job to keep the homeland safe. But I would agree. It probably will involve a lot of marshaling of those resources and reorganization. But who's to say they haven't done that already. My general point is that the conversation in this thread completely ignores that this is an imposition of a different regulatory scheme, not a banning. And actually it's in favor of enforcing more security on routers which everybody has been screaming for for years.
It's fine to have a reaction. It just rhat a lot of the comments totally ignored this this caveat. So basically, as I read it by default, they're banned unless approved, which is pretty much what all regulation does anyway, isn't it.
If you actually read the notice, it exempts models that have been approved. So this just seems to require approvals by DOH or DHS ,": Routers^ produced in a foreign country, except routers which have been granted a Conditional Approval by DoW or DHS." I take this to mean it is just adding security approvals for this type of thing to DOw and DHS. It is not a ban of all future models. It's just saying explicitly that instead of having to review models already in the market and determine that they should be removed because of nation state or other security concerns they are reviewing them before they go to market. Would be nice if people actually read it instead of hyperventilating.