> I wish the order of presentation were different, because it starts with incorrect and misleading claims and then only later fixes its trajectory.
I wouldn't hold my breath, every inch of this article is evidently AI-generated - you can tell not only from the meandering narrative but also from the "Not because X, but Y", the short punchy sentences to reiterate the same point, the really strange cherry-picked examples for head-to-head comparisons, and the sincere concern over simplified generalisms.
> Yeah, ok. This is what they should lead with. It's an important message.
Is it? Your optimism in hoping to find some point to all this restores some of my faith in humanity, but I think it's misplaced here. The entire premise of the article is bizarre - why should it be surprising or bad that historical figures from 1000s of years ago, regardless of their historical importance, don't have proportionate representation in contemporary discourse?
I fully understand your point that GDPR hasn't been good for investment or startups, and that that the likelihood of a startup succeeding to reach sustainability in the european field has significantly diminished. What I'm rejecting is that that's necessarily an undesirable state of affairs. Does the world really need the likes of Blur or DiscountMugs to succeed, when they have proven woefully incapable of protecting the most basic forms of user data?
The tech economy seeing such upheaval right now could be construed as a signal demonstrating how dependent it was on fundamentally unhealthy and untenable data practices that were previously endemic to the industry.
I'm sorry that you have had to spend a tonne of money to attain GDPR compliance. I imagine most "incumbents" have had to spend a good deal as well; I can only hope that the next generation of companies have learnt from your company's mistakes and to structure their data processes from day 1 to avoid accruing such sensitive data in the first place.
At any rate - a tech sector is possible. A thriving one, that can sustain as much employment? Maybe not quite, there'd have to be some adjustments; but the people would be better off. A tech sector with the same market cap? Unlikely, but we need to get over ourselves and question if preserving the techocracy's wealth is more important here.
That presumes all early stage startups (as made in the US) are created equal, and any regression in their success rates is bad.
Given that 9/10 startups fail even without GDPR, it's not surprising that early stage cos form the Lion's share of failures, and it surely can't be good for any data that was slurped up during whatever these experiments at market fit were doing.
And given that the ultimate goal of GDPR is to protect privacy, it doesn't make sense to exempt startups, especially when the early stage stakes are high and a failure to squeeze out every drop of value legally possible out of your data (while your competitors do) could mean the death of your venture.
As such, comparing to American standards or even current European standards doesn't quite work when there's a clear shift of the moral bar for GDPR compliance.
Not sure of the specifics here - one reconciliation of the two statements could be, that Cavendish proved to be a good transport vector for this particular strain of fungus to spread rapidly on a global scale, notwithstanding its broad virulence.
I wouldn't hold my breath, every inch of this article is evidently AI-generated - you can tell not only from the meandering narrative but also from the "Not because X, but Y", the short punchy sentences to reiterate the same point, the really strange cherry-picked examples for head-to-head comparisons, and the sincere concern over simplified generalisms.
> Yeah, ok. This is what they should lead with. It's an important message.
Is it? Your optimism in hoping to find some point to all this restores some of my faith in humanity, but I think it's misplaced here. The entire premise of the article is bizarre - why should it be surprising or bad that historical figures from 1000s of years ago, regardless of their historical importance, don't have proportionate representation in contemporary discourse?