You shouldn't assume what I think, especially when you are wrong.

If it walk like a duck, and quacks like a duck. Perhaps you should engage in some soul seeking 🙁

What you propose is an alliance where countries maintain their differences, essentially the dissolution of the EU and the return to the Europe

Again, there's more ways to interact with others than (a) everyone is dictated top down vs (b) dog eat dog.

What I propose is voluntary democratic cooperation. An improvement upon the current structure with more respect for everyone.

"In Russia they're doing it too" is to me insufficient motivation to lessen our democratic basis and individual freedoms.

I'm afraid that you don't understand how the executive power works.

How it should work is a legislative branch to propose laws, a parliament to vote on it, an executive to implement it. The bastardization of the process by the EU is that the executive initiates legislation, and isn't directly elected.

That's why they can repeatedly propose the same unpopular law, without any fear of losing power.

What you propose is an alliance where countries maintain their differences, essentially the dissolution of the EU and the return to the Europe of the early 1900.

to the 1900? what? do you think that currently the EU is one big country with no major differences?

the EU consists of several different communities, with different cultures and different thinking. I think each country should be able to keep its healthy dose of sovereignty. I'm not saying what we have today is ideal, but turning everything to be more authoritarian is not going to make anything better.

the EU consists of several different communities, with different cultures and different thinking.

Where does this come from? An ultra conservative tabloid?

Although there is still a strong push towards national interests due to some countries' myopia, the EU members are largely aligned with common rules on every aspect of the social life, the EU laws comes before members' laws like in a federation, and there are common investments including the cohesion funds (did you ever hear of those?).

I think each country should be able to keep its healthy dose of sovereignty.

Basically what the ECR and the Patriots say, which is amusing because they are the authoritarian ones, including some big fan of Putin, MAGA, and Hitler. When you think about it, it's not surprising that an "healthy dose of sovereignty" goes side by side with far-right ideas.

You may be right if you talk about initiatives to contrast cryptography (which failed multiple times), but in general the EU has always had a centrist politics thanks to the fact that groups like ECR and Patriots never managed to get the power. In the latest years, the far right is gaining traction with victories in some countries and I dare to say that it's a mix of misinformation, conspiracy theories, and propaganda aiming to push precisely those ideas of an "healthy dose of sovereignty" to weaken what is becoming a political block that could eventually compete with the USA, China, and that could stop the imperialism of Russia. Having some of those far right parties strongly connected to MAGA and Putin, is an interesting "coincidence".

Check your sources because you have misunderstood lots of things. Unless, of course, you actually want the Europe of 1900.

Where does this come from? An ultra conservative tabloid?

umm, no, I haven't read it anywhere. It's just how it is. why do you think this is not the case?

are you immediately imagining me as a russian tankie?

Basically what the ECR and the Patriots say, which is amusing because they are the authoritarian ones, including some big fan of Putin, MAGA, and Hitler. When you think about it, it's not surprising that an "healthy dose of sovereignty" goes side by side with far-right ideas.

well their dose is not healthy

what is becoming a political block that could eventually compete with the USA, China, and that could stop the imperialism of Russia.

as I see this would either need voluntary high cooperation of most countries, which would be a good thing (but not in the sense of imposing my country's laws on your country because your country hosts servers of interest), but something very hard to achieve because that would need to be maintained for multiple political parties when they are elected.
or a united states of europe that would basically replace each country's political system with a top-down system as the other user said, where there are no local elections for the ruling party anymore, or much less meaningful, but only an EU-wide election. which I'm not sure if it's bad, it's certainly a lot different. but it's not something I like that after that, moving to another EU country is not an option if what you want is to leave a bad legal regime.

you know, maybe I have these main problems with the eu cloud act:
- 10 days is way too little time for appeal, especially when there's a high volume of requests (a single country could overload their capacity)
- you won't get to know if a country has held the gun to your email or other provider to hand over your data. yes this is the case already, but this change makes it even worse.
- if a country bans encryption, does that mean my online service providers have to ban me from the encrypted functions?

I haven’t read it anywhere. It’s just how it is. why do you think this is not the case?

So you are saying that you have first hand information to state that "the EU consists of several different communities, with different cultures and different thinking". Who are you? A sociologist who studied the EU for the past two decades?

I'm asking because it's completely in contrast with my first hand experience. I lived and worked in a few countries besides my original one and I found that the actual differences are more limited to what people eat for breakfast, what stereotypes they have for other countries, and the quality of the services one gets.

Basically what the ECR and the Patriots say

well their dose is not healthy

So where do you stand? With Farage cherry picking what you like of the Union?

as I see this would either need voluntary high cooperation of most countries, which would be a good thing (but not in the sense of imposing my country’s laws on your country because your country hosts servers of interest)

The cornerstone of the EU is the free market that means having a company from Spain able to do business in Germany. To achieve that, it is essential to have common rules and common standards just like it's essential to eliminate barriers. You can't have your cake and eat it too. The UK tried, and now they are out.

or a united states of europe that would basically replace each country’s political system with a top-down system as the other user said, where there are no local elections for the ruling party anymore, or much less meaningful

Maybe you didn't notice, but the European elections are already much more important than the local elections since the internal political economy is largely controlled by the EU. Your government can (for now) play around civil rights, manage pocket money, but cannot go out of the European boundaries that are becoming tighter and tighter every year.

10 days is way too little time for appeal, especially when there’s a high volume of requests (a single country could overload their capacity)

You are attacking a law that removes national barriers because your slightly-fascist country may abuse of that. Fix the fascism instead.

if a country bans encryption

It won't happen, but even if it does, you run your own.

When adding code this way, one needs to look it over and read to fix bugs or things that are not quite correct; stats show experienced developers often are faster not using this approach because debugging existing code takes longer than writing it fresh.

The speed is not the issue.

What matters is sometimes subtle bugs are introduced that require several people to catch. If at all. These issues might be unique to the Llm.

Having large sections of generated code offers the possibility of hard to find problems.

Some codes are more sensitive to such issues.

The details of how the code was added, and what it does, may render this issue harmless or very much a problem to be avoided.

This is why it’s a flag and not a condemnation

Sure, but with all the mistakes I see LLMs making in places where professionals should be quality checking their work (lawyers, judges, internal company email summaries, etc) it gives me pause considering this is a privacy and security focused company.

It's one thing for AI to hallucinate cases, and another entirely to forget there's a difference between = and == when the AI bulk generates code. One slip up and my security and privacy could be compromised.

You're welcome to buy in to the AI hype. I remember the dot com bubble.

You’re welcome to buy in to the AI hype.

We've been using 'AI' for quite some time now, well before the advent of AI Rice Cookers. It's really not that new.

I use AI when I master my audio tracks. I am clinically deaf and there are some frequency ranges that I can't hear well enough to master. So I lean heavily on AI. I use AI for explaining unfamiliar code to me. Now, I don't run and implement such code in a production environment. You have to do your due diligence. If you searched for the same info in a search engine, you still have to do your due diligence. Search engine results aren't always authoritative. It's just that Grok is much faster at searching and in fact, lists the sources it pulled the info from. Again, much faster than engaging a search engine and slogging through site after site.

If you want to trade accuracy for speed, that's your prerogative.

AI has its uses. Transcribing subtitles, searching images by description, things like that. But too many times, I've seen AI summaries that, if you read the article the AI cited, it can be flatly wrong on things.

What's the point of a summary that doesn't actually summarize the facts accurately?