I thought about it. You’re right, I think. But even had I not thought about it, you’d still be right.

Men are people too

The line is “do you need to work ever to maintain at least the current living standard”

The answer would be “no” for most europeans. Cost of living in asia is around 400EUR a month, with a higher living standard. Most europeans could achieve that easily.

In Belgium lower income people also tend to vote more extreme. It’s even shown that whenever extreme right parties grow, it’s usually because they convinced people that previously voted extreme left.

People who vote for the socialist party are typically retired or work for the government in some capacity.

Most people are a bit of both, no?

We kill animals at their peak, and harvest them for meat.

That’s not the case. There’s even different words to the meat depending on the age the animal got slaughtered. There’s no single “peak”.

Would you walk a bear or would the bear walk you?

Any loss is a loss too much. Thanks for sharing your story and hers. Wishing you a few rays of sunlight.

Hmm, I’ll rephrase. I fail to see the connecting thought between the list of random thoughts?

I struggle to see what question you’re asking?

Someone once explained it to me.

Some think the law should describe illegal behaviour. And that the law should apply the same to everyone. Those people are a minority.

What happens in practice is that most people just want to be able to punish people they don’t like. So they don’t mind overly broad, generic laws, as in their mind it will only be used against the other. Especially in (former) high-trust societies.

And in practice the selective enforcement can work for a long, long time, too. Until a shift of power occurs, and the same laws are enacted just as selectively, but directed differently. Then they surprise pikachu.

I’d assume they’re danish actors based on the article

In Denmark, the “right of integrity means that even in cases where you are allowed to make use of a work, you are not allowed to change it or use it in a way or in a context that infringes the author’s literary or artistic reputation or uniqueness,” a resource for Danish researchers noted.

Infringes reputation is so sooo broad. It comes down to who does the judge like the most, no? Reddit mods will always be way down on the list, as the judicial inclined tend to be technologically illiterate.

Also, the reddit mod is not jailed. In most of europe “prison” sentences like this are conditional sentences.

commenter justifying why the EU is attempting to loosen their privacy laws.

They’re not?

They’re listing 2 possibilities:

Status quo: the whole AI (and tech in general) remains foreign controlled.

EU makes a change in GDPR Law

Maybe you can add a third option, like: “Perhaps GDPR law isn’t the reason why AI and tech sector in EU is so non-existant”, and a constructive conversation could’ve been had.

Has anything I’ve written even read like I’m forming a group of like minded people, virtue signaling, and running the other person out of town?

Yes.

when I’m clearly responding to what the person wrote and only what the person wrote

That’s sadly incorrect. You responded to an incorrect assumption made about the original comment.

explaining something no one asked to be explained, sort of gave away their opinion with their explanation

I understood that point of view. I just don’t agree, at all! I prefer factual conversation, describing the dilemma. OP demonstrated that they understand that the problem has multiple tradeoffs.

coloring the loss of privacy laws for the betterment of AI companies as a good or necessary thing (like the original commenter did).

The original commenter didn’t do that? They described the tradeoff.

I think you prefer tribal, coloured conversation. To the point where if it doesn’t match your preferred colour, you very quickly and incorrectly assume people are anti your colour?

Sadly, my experience is the same

Good luck to them!

Explaining something no one asked to be explained without providing an opinion on the subject itself reads like tacit approval.

Do some people’s brains really work like that? I prefer it when people simply describe a problem, instead of making it all tribal and mixing reality with opinion!

The quality of discourse on lemmy is fucking dire.

Amen. A large fraction of the people on lemmy lack empathy and the ability to consider other viewpoints in general. Very anti-social, close minded crowd.

DeepSeek is it’s own model, designed and trained from ground up. It’s a novel architecture even. Impressive work.

It’s not a ‘stolen from the US’ model.

There does appear to be something special going on in the EU in that we can’t seem to participate on a technological level since the 80s. Making the block industrially irrelevant, which has had grave geopolitical consequences already.