As always, there's a tradeoff. I used to go for doing all setup in each test for clarity, but one of my co-workers eventually convinced me that doing this in a fixture is better.
There'll always be some duplication, but too much makes it harder to see the important stuff in a test.
It depends on how much setup is done, and where it is. 10 tests that share a setup fixture are good. 100,000 starts to get unmaintainable.
I have lots of test fixtures each responsible for about 10 tests. It is very common to have 10-20 tests that share a startup configuration and then adjust it in various ways.
And clearly the author hasn't read the AI act, where there are explicit carve-outs for security and defence applications (as there are in basically every EU law).
> The European 'peace dividend' that was invested into social safety nets is backed by American might
Do you have any evidence for where the peace dividend went? Like, if you look at entitlements over the past 30 or so years, you can see that they've gotten worse in a bunch of European countries (UK, Germany probably not France).
It looks a lot more like the peace dividend went into caring for old people, as it will in basically all Western countries over the next while. Not sure there's a better solution, apart from letting old people die.
We are fine operating under highly regulated censorship laws, as American companies operating under India's IT Acts has show.
We are against the DSA because it is a de facto non-trade barrier to American services exports becuase of it's tax implications.
And it's doesn't matter that Trump is in office - a Harris administration would have played hardball against the EU as well, as was seen with the Biden admin perusing lawfare and lobbying to make an example out of Canada for their attempt at a digital services tax.
It's the same reason the Obama admin lobbied hard for the TPP to not include a digital services tax and harmonize with American IP law.
Russia, China, Brazil, India -- all have similar censorship systems but Americans don't find it as troubling because those countries aren't part of the same shared cultural identity known as "The West".
Americans simply aren't qualified to talk on matters of censorship or surveillance, period. Post-Patriot Act, you are a slave to the NSA with zero legal or technical recourse that would afford you privacy.
Be careful throwing legislative stones from glass houses.
Nope. It's because we don't have to pay a digital service tax in any of those countries (except in Russia, where American companies no longer operate due to sanctions considerations). And it's always been about DST [0][1].
No one in the policy space who is able to reach a position to affect power gives a s### about ideology unless it is a deeply personal issue for that person, and for most policymakers (who are overwhelmingly non-technical in my experience), digital free speech absolutism just isn't something they care about at a personal level.
> Nope. It's because we don't have to pay a digital service tax in any of those countries (except in Russia, where American companies no longer operate due to sanctions considerations). And it's always been about DST [0][1].
Then your government should pass BEPS Pillar 1, so that this doesn't happen. You can't have your cake and eat it.
The deal was that BEPS would replace the digital services taxes, and lots of countries implemented it on the basis. However the US has not implemented this (for whatever reason), which means DSTs are back on the table.
From a geo-political standpoint I'd expect to see them pretty soon, especially if the US abandons Ukraine.
Comparing Brazil and India to Russia and China is just retarded.
Also India is more liberal than western Europe in a lot of ways.
For example, French laicite means no display of religious symbols publicly, while India allows a wide variety of religious symbols, having some of the largest mosques, churches and temples in the world
Moreover, in India people openly criticize other religions, while England jails people for such things. This idea that Europe is liberal and no one else is just myopicism
European hubris makes them believe that they are uniquely liberal. European countries can hardly deal with a small number of other cultures.
I honestly don't see anything particularly strange about it. The only thing I can see that would actually impact any of the businesses is the requirement to provide a complaints procedure.
Note that I worked in one of the major targets of this law (Meta) for many years and I don't see anything there that amounts to a trade barrier to US service exports.
Can you help me understand the concerns here?
Like, to my mind, the DMA is a much bigger deal but US peeps are way more upset about the DSA.
And like, the US runs the Banking Secrecy Act and weaponises the dollar system on a completely regular basis, so I'm honestly flabbergasted that they object to other companies enforcing their laws extra-territorally.
> And it's doesn't matter that Trump is in office - a Harris administration would have played hardball against the EU as well, as was seen with the Biden admin perusing lawfare and lobbying to make an example out of Canada for their attempt at a digital services tax.
Yeah this I agree with.
But unfortunately, because most tech/pharma company profits are booked where the IP is located and this is easy to move, digital services taxes are going to happen over the next decade. I understand why the US government doesn't like this, but it's either that or actual trade barriers to these companies. (And I say this as a citizen of a country that benefits massively from these shenanigans).
I mean, their counter-parties know all of this, but the fact that PE assets don't need to be marked to market on a regular basis can be good for a lot of these investors, as it introduces a delay in the spiral that can otherwise occur with public assets.
Like, if AI collapses, everyone's gonna sell Treasuries to cover losses as they are super liquid (mostly), but the PE assets can pretend that they're still worth whatever, thus reducing margin calls.
PE is generally bad, but their LP's are not entirely stupid and the ability to mark to imagination is worth a bunch of money sometimes.
To be fair, this is because the US figured this stuff out way earlier through credit cards, and now there's a bunch of stakeholders and legacy changes which get in the way of making the services better.
Indeed, and there are some good reasons, too: US regulators want to prop up smaller regional banks and avoid large national monopolies (for what is essentially a natural monopoly).
The externalities of the crappy US banking system are so vast though. Musk, crypto, ...
> Maybe you get put on a list so US banks can't send you money anymore too.
This is a good example, because the US government routinely passes laws that prevent people from transacting using the dollar system (which is basically the world financial system) and this is OK, but the EU requiring companies that operate in their market to obey different laws is not OK?
I don't really get the logic here, but perhaps I'm missing something.
> And this is why the EU is stagnant and unable to innovate.
Can you help me understand how the EU is stagnant? Granted, they have lower economic growth than the US, but they're (mostly) not running large fiscal deficits.
And unable to innovate is quite simply, untrue. Deepmind (you know the people that invented LLMs) were a UK based company and were purchased by Google. Spotify & Skype were also both relatively innovative.
If by innovative, you mean are highly valued in the stock market above what a rational person would pay, then yeah Europe doesn't have as much "innovation". Now, if there was a single EU capital market (which honestly should be in London, despite the political complexities) then that might not be true.
Also worth noting that a lot of the US market is propped up by EU/EEA investors. Like, the Norwegian oil fund owns an appreciable amount of the US stock market. What would happen if all the European money was withdrawn from the US market? Nothing good for US "innovation".
And on the core point here, social media is now the public sphere, and as such is definitely worthy of investigation by academics. Like, if FB can do this (with much more personal data) then Twitter/X can do it. In fact, it would be super easy as they used to do it before Elon decided to attempt to monetise it badly.
Like, most studies of social media were performed on Twitter data, precisely because of this.
And you're posting a 6+ years old news report about indoor plumbing for a country with the lowest population density (in squared kilometers) of ~8.5 compared to ~35 (US) and ~100 (all of the EU) as if it had any meaning.
Indoor plumbing doesn't have anything to do with population density. Millions of rural Americans have indoor plumbing without municipal water and sewer systems, using wells and septic tanks.
There'll always be some duplication, but too much makes it harder to see the important stuff in a test.
reply