American chips depend on European-made Extreme Ultraviolet lithography machines, which are among the most complex machines ever built and rely on European high-tech mirrors, etc... Everything is then assembled in Taiwan. This industry is so interconnected that nothing can be done independently, at least not in the Western part of the world.
The main point should not be the hardware or software itself, because these are just tools that can eventually be obtained. The real issue is development and its cost. US companies now have to cover substantial capital requirements for developing entirely new business models, capital that would likely never be accumulated in Europe. In the past, they competed globally, but in a more fragmented world this is no longer the case. As a result, the risk associated with such investments is higher because potential reward is smaller.
Mistral does not have to compete in the same way. It lacks both the ability and the intention to fight on the global stage against Silicon Valley capital. Instead, it can wait for the industry to stabilize and for business models to mature, then adopt them.
Over time, there will be standardized ways to train models to a certain quality, and key technologies will become less opaque. This is already happening. A similar pattern occurred in Europe with hosting services, for example Hetzner.
Mistral is not playing the same game. It is also unlikely that US attitudes toward Europe will change significantly even with a different administration, that Russia will stop trying to undermine the EU, or that China will become a fair and friendly player. All of this supports the case for local providers of critical infrastructure, which benefits companies like Mistral or similar European counterparts.
This is changing somehow. At least on a surface. For example Amazon have created European subsidiary completely managed by Europeans under European company thus under it's local jurisdiction.
1. the 2018 CLOUD Act mandates US companies — and their subsidiaries — to provide information to the US government on demand, regardless of where the data is stored
2. FISA secret courts prevent companies from even saying they where summoned, or telling anyone who or what the case was about (including canaries).
So you won't ever know if your data was handed over to the US government.
They should be legally and physically separated and these actions should be then potentially illegal for Europeans so I do not think I'm at least infactual.
But assuming the owner is US company abiding US laws it's safe to assume that data would be transferred to US one way or the another.
The US intelligence machinery spied on Angela Merkel's phone. Do you suppose secretly demanding cooperation for Lawful intercept capabilities in Amazon GmbH is somehow beyond or beneath them?
Also consider that all communication between the European subsidiaries to the HQ is fair game under FISA.
The European leaders would have have no say in it. If the software from Seattle is designed to covertly exfiltrate information, they won't even know it. Even if they review the individual code changes, it can be an obfuscated attack similar to XZ where the code itself is clean, but not so much for the network fabric firmware binary test data.
That's why I used the "somehow". But abiding your logic nothing is ever secured, which is ultimately true, but it could be illegal so detergent here is not the impossibility it self but potentional harsh punishment for breaking the law.
Once again, someone is doing Blizzard’s work better than Blizzard, so naturally they have to be punished.
Last time, they even shut down a few major Classic servers before realizing that people had gone there because they did not want to play Blizzard’s shit mutilated version of the game they loved.
All we can do is hope Blizzard copies this idea in time as well. Activision Blizzard is, without a doubt, one of the worst gaming companies out there.
Arrogant yes but don't forget greedy. Call of Duty is absolutely destroyed brand. Unplayable solely by ridiculous amount of battle passes and stupid fantasy skins.
Also don't forget that around a decade ago they also acquired King, the makers of Candy Crush Saga. They've been all-in on the "get players to pay for extra stuff" for a while now
I wish to know if politicians pushing this agenta know that it would be absolutely ineffective and they are doing it solely to appease to their voters or they actually believe this would have any effect on criminals.
The worst part is that, in their most famous video linked above, they are not even telling blatant lies for once. The author was practically handed material for that video on a silver platter. That is quite disturbing.
Never would have found that. Poked around, interesting:
"In response to your completely valid request, and in line with the boycott of the US dollar, we have closed our USDT wallet.
Please use Bitcoin or Solana instead."
All of the lyrics that reference it are talking about the country, the government and its president. If them being pictured as making a financial trade with the US president is an "anti-semitic trope", it becomes impossible to satirize these real-world events. Is there a different real trope that I missed?
"The Jews are secretly running things to the detriment of the common person" has been a right-wing conspiracy theory for a long time, going well before even the invention of modern politics.
With that said, I think the video, looked at as a propaganda piece, threads the needle about as well as possible - it sticks strictly to referring to Israel as a country, but also just as importantly frames Trump as the primary actor rather than taking direction from Israel.
Equating the government and its president to Jews in general is a massive disservice, and truly antisemitic, towards the hundreds of thousands of Jews[0] who directly oppose them. The video showed the former. I realize that the second part of your comment means you're not doing so, but the person saying that the video at that timestamp showed an anti-semitic trope, was doing so.
The main point should not be the hardware or software itself, because these are just tools that can eventually be obtained. The real issue is development and its cost. US companies now have to cover substantial capital requirements for developing entirely new business models, capital that would likely never be accumulated in Europe. In the past, they competed globally, but in a more fragmented world this is no longer the case. As a result, the risk associated with such investments is higher because potential reward is smaller.
Mistral does not have to compete in the same way. It lacks both the ability and the intention to fight on the global stage against Silicon Valley capital. Instead, it can wait for the industry to stabilize and for business models to mature, then adopt them.
Over time, there will be standardized ways to train models to a certain quality, and key technologies will become less opaque. This is already happening. A similar pattern occurred in Europe with hosting services, for example Hetzner.
Mistral is not playing the same game. It is also unlikely that US attitudes toward Europe will change significantly even with a different administration, that Russia will stop trying to undermine the EU, or that China will become a fair and friendly player. All of this supports the case for local providers of critical infrastructure, which benefits companies like Mistral or similar European counterparts.
reply