Like, so much insanely cleaner than your food.

Sewers are the giant pipes with all that air at the top.

Your water pipes are filled almost the entire time, and the trunks are literally constantly flowing. There’s little to no air for anything to grow with, and at the very beginning there’s almost no bacteria since it’s treated water being pumped in. All on top of the that copper is a natural sterilizer.

Tha’ts more of a goal than a plan.

We should do this regardless

I mean, what’s your alternative competent plan for dealing with the cartels?

Lmao. So how many “breakthroughs” happened in the US last year and how many “breakthroughs” happened in the UK?

And how are you measuring their relative significance and scale?

In case youre not aware, the overall point im making us that you have literally no idea how to measure innovation in a reliable or meaningful way.

So again, I would point you to overall outcomes, rather than chasing shiny buzz words. At the end of World War 2, the US was orders of magnitude wealthier per capita then virtually every single European country, and yet, today, Europeans are happier, healthier, and richer then Americans. So all those patents helped Americans how exactly?

I recognize that there are many Americans who believe a great deal in the benefits of standards and interoperability.

But on the whole, as a group, you’ve spent almost a century electing politicians who vow to do the opposite.

They love letting their companies do so.

How can they benefit from innovation that has been stifled?

a) how are you measuring “innovation”?

b) how are you measuring the “benefit”, and for who?

Regulations and standardization can hold back an existing company from trying a new idea, however, they are also the only thing that creates true, lasting, interoperability, and interoperability is what let’s new companies enter markets.

i.e. Theoretically, Apple may be held back if they want to innovate their charging port because they have to make it compatible with USB-C.

However, now new companies that aren’t apple that want to innovate on cables and chargers can enter the market, and they’ll benefit from a consistent specified interface and not having to design a million proprietary variants, and they’ll be able to plan their products in a stabler, longer term environment, that will make it easier to attract investment.

Standards are effectively a government created platform / framework for building and designing new ideas. True innovation often strives when you have some thoughtful constraints that lets everything work together predictably.

Oh encouraging to see they’re finally out there.

$340 CAD for the UGreen one is eye watering, but not insanely out of line compared to early 100W USB C docks…

The Framework one is a lot more reasonable, but sadly we’re not part of the EU yet.

100%.

Sony has continuously sought to make money on licensing royalties for proprietary formats whenever they can.

And then took 8 years to add it to their phones? And only did so kicking and screaming after being forced to by EU regulations? And whose USB C implementation is notably more finicky and less compatible then virtually every other manufacturers’?

This wouldn’t happen to be the same company that reversed the polarity on headphone jacks just to be a dick would it?

However, most of that is still part of advertising; producers proactively strive to get reviewed.

Reaching out to reviewers is still technically advertising in the broadest definition of the word, but it is distinct from commercial advertising where companies pay to broadcast their specific messages to users.

This distinction is also reflected in the way that most companies are operated these days: reaching out to reviewers with information and offering them review units would fall under the marketing / communications / strategy department, but wouldn’t be referred to as advertising unless they were paying the reviewer for a positive review, which isn’t even legal in some places.

Thank God for the EU.

If Apple and the Americans had their way, each of those would use a different proprietary connector.

The spec supports 240W, and there are lots of cables rated at that, but there are still no chargers on the market that can hit 240W.

Why’d you pick 4? Why not all?

OpenAI said the threshold for referring a user to law enforcement was whether the case involved an imminent and credible risk of serious physical harm to others. The company said it did not identify credible or imminent planning. The Wall Street Journal first reported OpenAI’s revelation.

OpenAI said that, after learning of the school shooting, employees reached out to the RCMP with information on the individual and their use of ChatGPT.

Not defending them, but OP’s selections seemed intentionally rage baiting.

TBF, the original meaning of advertising was just that: spread the word about your product. Sure, praise it, add nice pictures, but that’s about it. People need to know that your product is out there, and what it’s like.

I get that, if you’re arguing from an economic efficiency standpoint, there was an argument to be made that the spreading of new information through advertising helps to spread new innovative ideas and thus increases overall societal efficiency.

It’s just that a) in the Internet age, we have other, non-advertising ways to spread information (i.e. specs and reviews), and b) if advertising was actually still about genuine education, then it would not scale in effectiveness the way it does with volume and repetition.

You’re right overall, but the mechanism you listed about advertising only appearing near safe content is not that big of a deal compared to other mechanisms at play:

1. psychological manipulation vs competition - the way that a capitalist economy is supposed to work is that a bunch of firms compete to sell you a good or service, you pick the best one for your situation and buy it, then the firm that produces the best good or service gets more resources (money) to grow, rewarding the best product maker.

Advertising breaks this. It lets you spend money on psychological manipulation to get people to buy your product, instead of just trying to produce a better product. True conservative capitalists should fucking hate advertising for distorting the economy, and letting big companies pay advertising money to drown innovative competition, but there are very few of those left these days.

2. engagement driven algorithms - because advertising operates on the basis of psychological manipulation rather than actually informing you, it means that its effectiveness always scales with volume.

i.e. I can read everything there is to learn about two different laptops, watch YouTube videos, read all the specs and reviews, and after about two hours of research I’ll know everything there is to know. A company can try and provide me with more information about their product to sway me, but at that point it’s probably ineffective because I know everything about them already. However if they bombard me with slick fun ads that evoke certain emotions in me over and over and over and over and over again, it will create an emotional bias towards one over the other.

This distinction is super important because it is what leads to most of advertising’s ills: most specifically engagement driven algorithms, which social media uses to keep you scrolling and are what are truly destroying society. The amount of human time and effort wasted to them is incalculable, the amount of languished relationships, neglected kids, over tired and angry people etc. is truly jaw droppingly damaging, and it is fundamentally because advertising is a cheap way to manipulate you into buying something, and unlike true education, it’s effectiveness keeps scaling with volume.

How about Canada And Mexico sign agreements with Europe, Latin America, and the TPP and see how the US manages without being able to exploit anyone?

Canadians don’t need the US, they have literally 10x the natural resources per capita. The US is not negotiating from a position of power.

Slavery (vs using a machine), involves the subject being either a human, or more broadly, a sentient being with a sense of self.

An AI cam be intelligent without being sentient or having a sense of self.

Again, there’s no reason to think that intelligence is a linear scale or a binary property.