"free market". Unless there's something better than what our own companies can do (Bombardier C-Series jets, DJI drones, BYD Electric Vehicles), then protectionism.
Also, I have to say that I find it very weird that random unrelated legislation can be in the same "act".
I agree that it’s protectionism, 100%. DJI seems to have been remarkably clean from what I understand with no reason to warrant a ban other than it’s Chinese.
That being said, they have an insane lead in the market (rightfully earned). I don’t think US companies could ever hope to seriously compete without some form of unfair advantage, and the US has no reason to not grant it, especially given China’s tactics with EVs
The thing about EVs that I don't get with this argument is US auto has been bailed out, subsidized, protected and otherwise coddled for it's entire life. If that doesn't grant it an unfair advantage what will?
The reality is that US protectionism has instead created a market where they didn't need to compete. Where they could build ever bigger cars with only Califonia even attempting to try nudge them in the direction of the rest of the world.
China showing up and eating their lunch isn't because of subsidies, it's due to gross negligence on the behalf of legacy auto.
Has everyone already forgotten the endless hit pieces on Tesla? The almost weekly espousing that "EVs will never work?". I haven't.
This was entirely self-inflicted and just like the first round of protectionism that was designed to ward off Japanese auto industry it will probably end the same way.
Minimal (outside of the fact that a lot of the money given to Bombardier resulted in equity for Quebec and wasn't just handouts; but in terms of % of the whole program it's a wash).
Yet Canada isn't out there banning Boeing planes or asking for 300% tariffs on them for "unfair competition".
When companies receive outsized state subsidies that allow them to undercut the markets, it's not an apples for apples comparison.
As for the unrelated legislation, I agree. Too many things are tacked on / added on. NO ONE is reading these things in complete given that sometimes they receive the full 1k pages hours before the vote.
The other issue is the number of things funded that shouldn't be in general but that's a whole other can of worms. It's become a i'll vote for your thing if you give me this thing, for every single vote and that's toxic and gross.
If the US unfree market for automobiles (hello 2008) can't compete with Chinese state sponsored EVs, should we not do state subsidized EV and battery development here? Isn't electric transport that important?
If the problem is privacy, why don't we legislate privacy instead of banning apps and banning items?
My conspiracy theory would be that the US government doesn't want the citizen to have effective drones for surveillance and recon in the event of civil conflict. They want a Killswitch. (Totally crackpot but it sounds believable).
> If the problem is privacy, why don't we legislate privacy instead of banning apps and banning items?
Yes exactly. If some companies are doing things that you don't like, like misusing personal information and transferring it to other countries, it is much better to enact general laws that prevent that, as the EU is doing, rather than passing laws that ban individual Chinese companies.
It would be as if rather than regulating car safety, we had a situation where lots of cars by both US and foreign automakers had massive safety problems, but rather than fixing that in general, we simply chose to ban specific Chinese car brands on supposed national security grounds while ignoring that cars made by US companies had the exact same problems.
Your questions are right, but the conspiracy theory is dreadfully wrong. If you want a motivating force for banning, but not actually competing by leveling the field, it’s ideology. The US government doesn’t do subsidies (except when they do).
The saddest thing about these decline of American manufacturing, and the fragility of supply chains is that all of this was predicted 30 years ago, but Wall Street and the billionaire management class did their typical shortsighted profits taking instead of sustainability, soured on by ideological capture of both parties.
I often think about how the world would be different if the people actual won the Battle of Seattle.
It does poke a hole through the concept of markets that are free of government intervention lead to cheaper goods. I doubt these subsidies don’t further government revenue in some way, so is the Chinese government a better capital allocator than the free market? They’ve made bets on solar, EVs, battery tech, and pretty much everything related to advanced manufacturing bar the latest CPU lithography, and right now they’re winning. Such a narrative couldn’t sit well with the US that poses as the poster child of laissez-faire capitalism (though often with heavy government interference of its own)
The Chinese government is playing the "kill competitors with price cuts" game on the national level by not floating their currency AND subsidizing their major international tech. Eventually someone will foot this bill. They hope the marbles they gain will be worth the cost.
so has this ever happened in the past, or just baseless speculation at this point? this thread is chock full of china experts telling us with certainly what china is going to do (justified with a lot of "just trust me bro") but I'm not seeing a lot of evidence
Nothing stopping the US government making big bets of its own. But perhaps it has in military tech. At any rate, the free market ideal has been proven as fallible as any ideal in practice
There is no such thing as "Free Market" when trading with China. Pretty every non-trivial trade with China is in fact a trade with their government, which is anything but a reflection of freedom in any shape of form.
But this isn't simply protectionism. In terms of dollar value and jobs lost, the drone trade is minuscule. It's about military technology and spying - and this is not paranoia, I guess I can't prove it to you, but I can at least say it.
> Oof, perhaps time to stock up if you rely on this equipment.
(I didn't read the bill, but based on the article alone...)
Looks like it's a tentative ban on usage, not sale nor ownership.
And currently with no "pre-ban" grandfathering-in, nor compensation for US people who'd be affected by the ban (e.g., investments in equipment, operations disrupted, migration costs).
The problem from my perspective, running a small DJI fleet in Civil Engineering, is that there are few comparative turnkey options from non-disapproved drone brands that actually compete with what I'm using now. The ones that could, are drastically more expensive.
From my understanding / research, the approved suppliers are largely focusing on the LE, Military markets.
There is no viable competitor to DJI for consumers when it comes to the software side especially -- DJI software is miles ahead of the other drone producers (on-drone and their mobile apps).
They are probably referring to the period where Huawei struggled to even ship a device because of sanctions applied to them that made it impossible to source components.
Once these were overcome they have bounced back and are looking stronger than ever, their revenue has now risen above the pre-sanctions peak.
I agree that Huawei didn't have the best phones, but it was not that far off, and for the price it was arguably a better phone.
Need a phone with a great camera? Then Huawei is much better than anything Samsung, Apple, and Google makes. Huawei market share was taking off at crazy speed before the bans on both the software and hardware side.
The Huawei ban's impact on smartphones was mostly a side effect. The real target was wireless infrastructure. Any time spent analyzing the phone stuff is a waste, that was all mostly collateral damage as we tried to prevent Huawei from dominating our domestic 5G (and related) networks.
> Seems a bit pointless banning the market leader?
I guess that depends on what the goal is? If a foreign company is the market leader, banning it allows US companies to take over the domestic market without having to actually figure out how to be competitive with the market leader.
Which US companies are going to have a $500 competent consumer drone with a great camera, solid reliability, and top of the line ease of use to sell me the day this ban goes into effect, or even 5 years down the road? The answer is none.
There are no US companies capable of serving this market. None can produce the product DJI did and consumers will abandon the market before they'll transition to a product that costs twice as much for half the value.
This is not like smartphones or laptops or televisions or any of that, it's not needed, it's a total luxury and hobby for 95% of buyers. They will walk before adopting a shitty US-based alternative and the market will shrivel and die.
So, this is a fine policy if hurting US consumers by destroying an entire field of hobby to thumb our noses at China is the goal. It's a broken policy of stimulating a US alternative is the goal. To accomplish the latter, subsidies and reasonable tariffs are the right approach, not bans.
> without having to actually figure out how to be competitive with the market leader.
This assumes end users will accept an inferior product. Without some additional pressure - subsidies or hell even nationalism - a ban alone won’t magically create on par US companies.
China has been doing this for decades so we don’t need to guess here. They seem to always bring much broader societal, financial and other support not just restrict access
Naive question: what prevents Americans from simply buying Dji products in Canada? It's a physical product, so banning it like TikTok or big vehicles is impossible, or am I missing something?
Since the control apps tap into GPS so they know when you're in a restricted zone, the gov't could simply make them mark all of the US as a restricted zone and the drone will never fly. I have one, I'm not happy about this.
This would have to come from the firmware in the drone looking up what the no-fly zones were. GPS is transmit-only location, it can't write no-fly zone data to a particular drone.
The drone would look it up through a connected cell phone using a web service like this:
I think (hope) it would be a hard sell to send different data from faa.gov to DJI drone lookups versus other brands, but on the other hand this complete brand ban is apparently politically possible.
DJI's no-fly zone database is completely independent from the US government. DJI would have to be compelled to add the US as a no-fly zone, which, if their drones are banned already, seems like a rather difficult thing to compel as there's no carrot at the end of the stick.
I mean, the carrot in the short term would be to raise public opposition to the bill. And possibly reduce support for the politicians pushing for the ban.
I've got a DJI drone and I've always been worried of some OTA software update essentially making the device useless. I've got a separate iPhone 8 that I don't connect to WiFi any more that I use only to control the drone. Though honestly my fear was more that the FAA would add dumber regulations and push them on DJI to enforce, which they seem to have already done quite a bit.
Nothing, they could even buy it in US... the ban is on Chinese company using Federal Communications Commission frequencies and they have all the good ones or even all of them.
I can't imagine what it would take for them to enforce the ban, so people would highly likely continue using and buying DJI products.
The US doesn't care if Americans buy them from Canada. The point of the law is to encourage US made drone manufacturing, because we'll need it during a war.
They don't care if a drone here or there slips thought, it's irrelevant to the point of the law.
Probably yes. The industry can fight with quality or price against Chinese bad products and non Chinese good products, but products that are both Chinese and top notch quality are going to dominate the market because of comparatively lower costs.
Now, that law can indeed have some basis, in theory, but tailoring it to a single brand won't achieve much as the Chinese industry can rebrand products at a cost and in times that are a fraction of a fraction of what it takes to any western democratic country to adjust the law against another brand.
On the other hand, they can't make a generic law against say suspicious code running on consumer devices that could be used to exfiltrate personal data, as it would potentially hit every connected device out there, including western branded ones.
My impression is that they (the law makers) are almost facing the wall where they should admit that closed proprietary devices are generally unsafe and bad, but can't because it would hurt the same industry that contributed to their campaigns, so they direct all weapons against the external enemy. "We're good, they're bad", and end of the story.
It reminds me.. when someone is cheating on a partner, they are more likely to think they are being cheated on too. I have experienced this, being accused non-stop when actually they were the one cheating all along.
Just because USA likes tampering with proprietary code and using NDA’s with Silicon Valley to bug just about anything they want (because they can), that paranoia consumes them that other countries are doing the same.
> Just because USA likes tampering with proprietary code and using NDA’s with Silicon Valley to bug just about anything they want (because they can), that paranoia consumes them that other countries are doing the same.
During times of war, other countries absolutely do the same.
Who said I'm trying to justify anything? I don't think it is justifiable to do during peacetime.
But obviously an existential crisis is not the time that many governments stand on their principles, which is why 'war powers' tend to be justified under extenuating circumstances when countries end up at war.
There is no question, if there is another major war between world powers, they will invoke the authority to compel their industries to cooperate with the effort. If they don't, they'll quickly cease to exist.
> they can't make a generic law against say suspicious code running on consumer devices that could be used to exfiltrate personal data, as it would potentially hit every connected device out there, including western branded ones. My impression is that they (the law makers) are almost facing the wall where they should admit that closed proprietary devices are generally unsafe and bad
The issue is even bigger than that. It doesn't matter what the device does now, nor does it matter whether it is open or proprietary.
When it comes to national security, ask yourself "what could happen in a time of war?" Some obvious answers are:
1. If it connects to foreign service providers, those services could be shut off or changed to be malicious
2. If the device uses parts/support/updates from foreign service providers, those could be discontinued, or changed to be malicious
3. If you need the product, but don't make them locally, they may no longer be available.
>The industry can fight with quality or price against Chinese bad products and non Chinese good products, but products that are both Chinese and top notch quality are going to dominate the market because of comparatively lower costs
I think the sooner the west (read US/Canada and Europe, some say Australia/NZ) realized and wake up from their denial the better. Gone are the days of the narrative we're not going to export to you our superior and more expensive products, but now the narrative we're not going to import your superior and cheaper products, how the table are turning 180 degree. It's not uncommon to watch western Youtubers praising the good quality DJI products and at the same being critical of GoPro sub-par quality products, and they're not even reviewing the products but just honest remarks from professional users going about their filming and recording routines.
One of the largest drone manufacturers globally and backed by the Chinese government [0] and several Red Families [1]
> why is it being banned
It is very closely connected with Chinese government stakeholders, with worries around privacy and data retention [2].
There is also some lobbying by Skydio and Andruil [3][4].
They are also breaking sanctions against Russia with Russian forces using their drones [5][6] (though the Ukrainians are using them as well), as well as sanctions around Xinjiang [7].
> why should the general public care about this
They are a popular low cost drone option. It might also spark a rise in domestic drone vendors - especially in the industrial and defense space [8].
---------
Also, can we please have another source. DroneDJ is a DJI specific blog and as such is biased in favor of DJI.
If you want to know why the US would have interest in limiting the growth of DJI look no further then Ukraine and the impact drones have on the war. The US wants to encourage domestic drone manufacturing by eliminating the largest Chinese manufacturer as an option.
They have Skydio for that. There is no profit in consumer-oriented drones. The money is in lower volume professional & semi-professional use drones. You cannot compete with China even if we annexed Mexico for cheap labor in order to manufacture high volume low profit drones.
This is exactly the problem. The military needs single-use drones in high volume, and the production capacity/scale for that can only exist if it's subsidized by the consumer industry.
> You cannot compete with China even if we annexed Mexico for cheap labor in order to manufacture high volume low profit drones.
DJI isn't making drones by hand, they have automated factories. But its only worth building an automated factory if you're selling at a massive scale. Banning DJI drones in the US lets you build a factory in the US that can eventually get costs down.
And it's also dumb to fund your opponent's war production lines.
I don't see why. Drones are pretty simple manufacturing wise. The issue at scale is the supply chain of cheap motors, cheap control boards, and cheap batteries.
which, the factory that builds drones or the drones themselves?
What would stop someone from building their own cargo container sized drone factory that takes parts like motors, pcbs, batteries in one end and spits out finished drones on the other?
The point is that most people who will buy a $700 Chinese drone will buy a $1000 US drone if that's all they can get.
I am of the opinion that the US made a very serious mistake by opening up tariff-free trade with countries which do not have comparable labor and environmental safety laws. The Feds should have come up with reasonable estimates of what foreign manufacturing was saving by cheating that way, and charged them that amount of money to sell products in the US. Factories which wanted to avoid those tariffs could pay for, and submit to, an independent audit of their factories.
Instead we decided that it was fine for US manufacturing to compete on an "even" basis with nations who are fine with laborers losing fingers and/or getting paid slave wages, and manufacturers dumping their waste stream into a nearby river. We've paid a severe price for that misguided egalitarianism, and it's time to change course.
As duties and trade restrictions were dropped in the late 70s and 80s, the mantra was that by doing so, the West would "uplift" poorer countries such as China. The goals to improve quality of life, transform the third world from agrarian to mass production, with a hope of spreading democratic principles as well.
And yes, over and over this was the desireded goal, I remember the election campaigns, the speeches, the white papers, the think tanks.
This has mostly been a success, looking at many such countries. The standard of living has gone up, for example China now has a "middle class" of sorts.
Environmental concerns were not on the radar at the time, not 50 years ago, not like today.
The intentions were reasonably positive and well founded. Of course, I agree reassessment is necessary, and it really should always be.
It was great for short term profit and stock value and everyone involved in making those choices is either dead or soon to be dead and doesn’t have to deal with the fallout.
>The point is that most people who will buy a $700 Chinese drone will buy a $1000 US drone if that's all they can get.
In the consumer market, if the $1000 drone has a significantly worse user experience then people just won't buy it. Before DJI the consumer drone market was much smaller; by creating a cheap, high-quality product DJI caused more people to purchase drones, growing the market. If there's no competitive alternative the market will just shrink again; consumer drones aren't a necessity.
By all reports, Skydio drones offer an excellent user experience.
The DJI Mini 3 Prop is currently $899, and Skydio can't manufacture something like that in the US, and sell it for that amount of money. But I bet they could make something comparable at a sale price of $1100-1300.
Allowing Communists to dump goods in our market is optional. I don't know that I support a ban on DJI products, I have a Mini 2: I like drones, but not enough to drop a couple grand on a Skydio 2 (and note that they exited the consumer market, presumably because of the aforementioned price dumping making it infeasible to compete). I would be pissed off if it was permanently grounded. But at minimum I support tariffs which are heavy enough to give domestic industry a chance to compete on an even footing.
And given the evident relationship between drone technology and national security, I could be persuaded that a full ban is in the national interest. Perhaps (this is only sort of a joke) the NSA could release a full open-source jailbreak of every DJI product, and publish an API for the cloud components which any American compute provider could then offer.
Then block their servers. Let 'em know that we'll let them back in the country when Facebook can operate in China, and not before.
At this point China is about as communist as FedEx is federal. They are “state capitalist” which pretty much means the government owns or has controlling stakes in a lot of companies. Singapore’s is similar.
They copied Lenin’s NEP, which was copied later by the German fascists. As it happens, Sun, Yatsen, on his deathbed, met with Mao one time in Guangzhou and they both agreed a fascist (or state capitalist) system would be best for the Chinese people. That was after NEP but before German fascists rose to power. Of course Stalin put an end to NEP and powered and willed full on communism after Lenin’s death.
> The point is that most people who will buy a $700 Chinese drone will buy a $1000 US drone if that's all they can get.
the time when the US could actually decide this sort of thing at close to planet scale is long gone. if you ban those devices, there will be countless other nations (including close friends of the US) where you will be able to buy them no problem.
Single-use means $20K - $50K, not $2K. What militaries are competing against with the Houthis and in Ukraine, is 20 - 50K drones and right now taking them down with $2MM missiles or a 50K drone taking out a 2MM tank. Dial those numbers up and you can see how the imbalance in cost is unsustainable. They don't need drones to be 2K.
The cost estimates for those are quite wide, but in terms of raw materials even those low-cost prices are kind of absurd right? $20,000 for a few motors, batteries, basically a modern smartphone and 20-40 pounds of explosive? The military expects that they will get a lot cheaper, which means you need to be able to counter them at least as cheaply.
I don't understand why every estimate assumes Russian and Iranian engineers work for free and only include the raw material/components cost of these weapons systems.
R&D costs makes up the vast majority of the cost of Western weapons systems.
> I think the military perspective at this point is that they want drones at all price points.
I think you're 100% right here.
It may seem absurd, but something that can take out a main battle tank would be well worth $20,000. An M1A2 Abrams costs $24 million. The latest model Russian T-90 is around $4 million. A Chinese Type 99 is around $2.5 million. The asymmetry is clear.
Some of that $20,000 is making sure it works reliably under any conceivable weather conditions, after it's been stuck in a storage container at +50 C/-30C for weeks or months, etc.
On the other hand, if you're just doing reconnaissance, maybe you'd rather send a swarm of 20 $1,000 drones instead (in an attempt to overwhelm the enemy's countermeasures).
UA is showing the world what can be done with <$1k drones. China has that market locked down right now, presumably this legislation is aiming at that market. This isn't about Reaper-scale drones.
>This is exactly the problem. The military needs single-use drones in high volume, and the production capacity/scale for that can only exist if it's subsidized by the consumer industry.
Single use drones could exist without subsidizing by the consumer industry. Ukraine is literally doing it with rubberbands. Anything else would simply lead to overdesign and basically the same problem we have now where the enemy is simply lobbing cheap artillery in volume while we simply do not have smart missiles to spare for Ukraine, nor for ourselves if we got into such a war. Lmao.
The American MIC is largely...maliciously incompetent. I work in this sector.
Overdesigning, so you can slap a 500% profit margin on something with more features than ever needed. Then you lobby the generals in charge of project funding with dinners, gifts and more.
I'm under the impression that the supply-chain for Ukrainian drones basically leads to China in the same way that it does for Russia. For a "small" regional conflict, this isn't a problem to Ukraine because there's no way China could or would restrict supply of their cheap drones. But for a large-scale conflict, it would be a problem for the US to not be able to source drone motors by the 10,000's.
> Banning DJI drones in the US lets you build a factory in the US that can eventually get costs down.
1. It is a bad idea to use national defense in this manner. There are more honest tools that can be used, see two.
2. Using tariff or other trade tools can blunt the impact of DJI's market position and allow for US entrants to develop. [0]
A weakness of both nat-sec bans and tariffs is that they don't actually do anything to encourage a company like Anduril to make the pro/sumer stuff needed for volume sales to develop broad acceptance, fast iteration and well founded supply chains.
> The military needs single-use drones in high volume, and the production capacity/scale
But yet they have no trouble procuring single-use (by definition) artillery shells that cost an order of magnitude more and require even more production volume?
Except - they have. All Artillery Shell Plants in all NATO countries combined (minus Hungary, because f* Orban) are unable to produce enough shells just for the War in Ukraine.
The US has completely gutted their manufacturing base, and currently won't be able to compete in a peer conflict on a ling term basis.
Not enough shell and ammo production, not enough logistical capability, not enough ships, not enough dock capacity...
High volume single-use drones and DJI drones are almost completely orthogonal in terms of technology, production, and procurement. The only thing they really share is MEMS gyroscopes and brushless motor windings. Making a million FPV bomb drones and making a million consumer camera drones are such dramatically different tasks that there is not a chance this theory holds water.
You should look at see what kind of drones are dominating Ukraine's skies. You'd see some water being held. And you probably should have googled this before making this comment.
DJI drones are being used in significantly lower quantities as "base stations" and long-range reconnaissance applications, with the occasional bomb-dropping side run.
FPV drones are being used in much, much, much higher quantity than DJI drones, owing to their massively lower cost to produce due to ... the simpler and mostly orthogonal supply chain!
Financing a consumer/enterprise camera drone production capability with an end goal of enabling the construction of large quantities of one-way FPV drones, as the parent post to mine suggested, would not be a good strategy, IMO.
Having domestic consumer/enterprise camera drone production capability at all is of course a good idea, but the quantity needed in war fighting is significantly lower, at least with the current tools and techniques seen in Ukraine.
I have the last consumer Skydio model, and I'm thinking of selling it to buy a DJI. Skydio has way more intelligence, but the camera quality just isn't there. Footage is ok for social media and that's about it.
This is why Western drone startups keep failing against DJI. The consumer and prosumer drone market do not want AI-driven flying autonomous robots. They want high-quality cameras that can fly.
When the Western drone startups fail at that they will turn to AI, agriculture, LIDAR/mapping etc. But all the money is in the consumer/prosumer market where DJI is earning billions every year which also makes them able to outspend competitors in the professional drone markets.
> How is banning DJI drones in the US going to affect how they're being used in the war in Ukraine?
It will not.
> Or do you mean that banning them in the US will somehow stop them from being used against the US in the future?
No.
This is about planning for the future. In the event of a war the US wants a large existing base of domestic drone manufacturers. Today, that just does not exist at scale as most are made in China. This is similar to efforts to re-shore chip manufacturing.
> This is about planning for the future. In the event of a war the US wants a large existing base of domestic drone manufacturers. Today, that just does not exist at scale as most are made in China. This is similar to efforts to re-shore chip manufacturing.
I don't think the US military generally uses off-the-shelf consumer products like the Ukraine military does, so does this actually affect them? They would be getting drones built to order from a military contractor anyway, so I don't think it really matters what the leading consumer manufacturer of drones is to the US military from that perspective.
Chip manufacturing seems like a slightly different situation in that if another country restricted US access to chips it would affect the entire US economy, so I think it has security implications in a broader sense where security is interpreted to include the stability of the US economy as a whole, rather than military supply specifically.
"I don't think the US military generally uses off-the-shelf consumer products like the Ukraine military does, so does this actually affect them?"
Yes, because if you have no drone manufacturing in your country, you can't just spin on a dime and suddenly have military-grade drone manufacturing. Technology is a lot less about knowing what the atomic weight of cesium is and a lot more about employee A knowing that B knows how to solve instability problems and their contact at company C knows what to do when the blades spin apart. You can't build the massive networks of those relationship by just passing a law today and expecting to have a best-of-class industry tomorrow, no matter how much money you throw at it.
>I don't think the US military generally uses off-the-shelf consumer products like the Ukraine military does, so does this actually affect them? They would be getting drones built to order from a military contractor anyway, so I don't think it really matters what the leading consumer manufacturer of drones is to the US military from that perspective.
They rather famously switched to an Xbox controller for their rolling drones, and for their submarine controls, because they just work better. For quite a while, military-issued camelbaks still had bright blue caps because the contract to custom build the systems hadn't been settled yet. There are in fact plenty of electronics that they use that are not purpose built, that are bought more or less off the shelf.
All of that said, I still agree that the US military is unlikely to allow off-the-shelf drones at this time. Parts availability is the driver there. Its better to pay a contractor $3k a pop to buy a bunch of a DJI Mavics, spray paint them olive drab, and issue them to each platoon than it is to give every platoon $3k and say "go buy a drone", because then you can buy 6000 of the same replacement rotor or whatever.
The shortcoming of the control scheme was that they wired the motors to respond to the controller wrong. That is, pitch was wired to yaw and vice versa. The controller just sends signals (digital values, specifically), what you do with them is up to you.
If you don’t need accurate force-feedback, just highly reliable transmission of inputs, why wouldn’t you use the final iteration of a controller that millions of players have spent billions of hours using and abusing?
It’s not even a Bluetooth controller, it’s just standard USB. The folks who were shitting on that design decision (and not the carbon fiber hull decision), have no sense of what’s common, or even possible, on a microcontroller device.
Ukraine goes through hundreds if not thousands of drones a day. Most are DIY or consumer grade at <$500 including warhead. Recent comments from DoD suggest their plan for defending Taiwan is hundreds of thousands of drones taking out any invasion fleet. At defense contractor prices that's a bitter pill to swallow even for the Pentagon. The M982 Excalibur (GPS/INS guided artillery shell) is ~$100k per boom. I largely agree a domestic supply chain for this stuff is important, even if Stefanik is ham fisted as always.
FWIW, we might be at peak drone for warfare anyway. At least vehicle based countermeasures are pretty obvious and will be put in place soon, although that won't be cheap either.
It has to do with spurring US manufacturers as the primary outcome. It’s not about affecting Ukraine in the short term or stopping them from being used against the US.
Drones are national security issues for two reasons -- one is that they could be used for surveillance domestically (similar problem with tik tok) and secondarily drones are now core warfare technology and the US has offshored so much of it's manufacturing capacity (not just for drones, but for all electronics) that the US is at real risk of losing any conflict with china because our supply chains will be absolutely wrecked if China cuts us off, so the US is trying to encourage more domestic production. I think China cutting off exports to the US would be way more devastating to the US economy than the US cutting Russia off from the world banking system was to Russia.
DJI is, by far, the best drone equipment brand for photography, industrial usage, etc.
It's disheartening to witness the US embracing protectionism for high-tech.
If the United States does this, it might as well join the European Union's decadence in killing tech startups by stifling the competitiveness of their market...
It's definitely economic protectionism but it's mostly protectionism for national security reasons. I assume the US is going to start manufacturing drones for war in large numbers in the near term and they need to be made at home (or at least by allies).
This seems likely. For those that haven't been following the war in Ukraine, now that all the Cold War munitions have been mostly used up, drones are now the primary weapon of both sides due to literal "bang per buck". It seems clear that drones are the 21st century weapon of choice.
> It seems clear that drones are the 21st century weapon of choice.
Only for targeted attacks. The Russian way of prosecuting war is still a shower of shells, rockets, and a mob with guns. Drones are retail, Russians do wholesale.
If this were the case I'd expect it to be related to all drones from China though. It also doesn't seem needed given the contracts can just state the requirement without extra hoopla.
Except you can totally use a DJI drone for war. I saw a video the other day of such a drone modified to drop airsoft grenades. Does not take much to replace it with the real thing.
Might as well just shut down and ban all RC hobby shops because RC Airplanes can carry heavier payloads than all of DJI's consumer/prosumer lines -- and are much easier to modify.
Ease of piloting is a huge differentiating factor and the entire reason why public drone regulation didn't exist until every tom, dick, and harry could reasonably keep something in the air long enough to bother someone else, despite hobby RC airplanes being around decades before drones.
Non-FPV drone flyers can drop 40mm grenades from 100ft and hit a CEP of like a couple feet, and that's with literally four drops of practice and unsophisticated munitions. Untrained RC plane pilots can NOT do that.
It's not hard to find videos of DJI drones dropping real grenades onto Russians, sometimes straight into the open hatch of a Russian tank. It's harder than it looks on video, but when it works the end result is quite irreversible for the Russians.
HAHA. DJI drones are amongst the most popular tools of war in the Ukraine conflict. Sometimes they drop bombs directly, but more commonly they're used as long-ranged lookout stations and RF-repeater "hovering motherships" for bomb-equipped one-way FPV drone operators (as well as just general reconnaissance tasks).
That said, I don't think this law has anything to do with war, just simple economic protectionism driven by Skydio and other US drone lobbyists. Getting rid of DJI's excellent $7,000 enterprise drones lets Skydio sell their $15,000 + cloud-subscription enterprise drones instead.
Sure, but DJI drones already weren't eligible for procurement in US defense anyway, so there's not a major net change there (barring weird edge case loopholes with third-party modifications). Skydio already got their protectionism in the federal space, this is a step beyond.
Of course DJI drones are used for conflict, however you have to circumvent the measures that DJI has taken to prevent this, DJI is not selling them for use in conflicts.
DJI can prevent you from flying near airports, they can try the same thing with conflict zones. I assumes they do this already and this check has to be bypassed.
I don't understand your argument: what has DJI - a manufacturer of personal use drones - with the US military wanting to build weaponized drones in the US?
Yeah the thing is that the US always, always justified everything by using the "national security" excuse/narrative. When another country does it to the US and its corporations, which has by far the longest modern history of getting involved in other nations national security, then it suddenly becomes an attack on free trade and pure protectionism.
>always justified everything by using the "national security"
Is it any different than China wanting data access from U.S companies that attempted to open their business there? I'm not in favor of this ban. I think they should've at least forced DJI to keep the data local before going for an outright ban.
I completely agree but the difference is that we already know China is a totalitarian one party dictatorship. They don't necessarily try to hide it to. That's not the case in the US, but it always sneaks in through dogwhistles like "national security". I mean who wants to be against that, right?
But yes it's obviously better for the US to at least keep the data from going overseas. But that's not really what we've been seeing with this potential ban and tik Tok. It's just outright banning stuff under the same "national security" boogeyman. Again, yes China does the exact same thing but I don't think we want to imitate China out of all nations. The cold war wasn't won by imitating the Soviet Union.
>If the United States does this, it might as well join the European Union's decadence in killing tech startups by stifling the competitiveness of their market...
I can still buy a DJI drone here in Europe. What stifling are you referring to?
Oh, those pesky consumers getting in the way of the innovation of the free market with their protections. If only they could be fully exploited for maximum value extraction without interference.
That's exactly what I think when I read one of these "EU stifles innovation" comments. It sounds to me like the equivalent of not wanting socialized healthcare because "the poors" might get it, not caring about the fact that you're the one who will benefit.
This is the "everyone in the US is a temporarily embarrassed millionaire" of consumer rights. Everyone in the US is a temporarily embarrassed capitalist overlord.
"Rich" people don't want socialized healthcare because of perceived or real disadvantages of that system. Not because "the poors might get it".
Also the "temporarily embarrassed millionaire" is another strawman, used by those who dislike capitalism. People can and do support a variety of causes and policies without they themselves benefitting from them.
> "Rich" people don't want socialized healthcare because of perceived or real disadvantages of that system. Not because "the poors might get it".
That's fair, I should have said "because the poors might benefit". Rich people don't like socialized healthcare because they, by definition, will pay for people who can't afford it.
The problem is when people who will benefit from this identify with people who will lose from it.
> People can and do support a variety of causes and policies without they themselves benefitting from them.
They do, but here we're talking about the opposite: People being against policies they benefit from, because they identify with the group that will not.
P.S. I liked your comment, it was a reasoned reply that furthers the debate, thank you.
You'll find very few people who don't want poor people to have things and it's disingenuous to put it that way.
The two commonly held arguments against socialized healthcare in America are:
First, a distrust that the government will create a system that is good and a belief that quality will decrease under such a system, and;
Second, that such a system would be funded by a large tax increase and that Americans are in general hard to get excited about tax increases. The financial concern is in the taking, not in the getting.
> You'll find very few people who don't want poor people to have things and it's disingenuous to put it that way.
I'm afraid your experiences are not universal.
There is a very strong streak of this in the US, significantly (though probably not wholly) traceable to the Calvinist roots of the Puritans who were a profound influence on the early culture of the country. When you believe that people's position on Earth is due to their level of deserving (Just World Fallacy), it's very easy to extend that to "and therefore we shouldn't try to help poor people; they're just being punished for being bad people."
You're right about the first part, but I'm not confused about anything.
There are genuinely many people who wholeheartedly believe that the poor deserve to be poor, and that helping them is bad. Some of them aren't even that well off themselves, but have bought into an ideology that's detrimental to them.
If you haven't encountered these people, then count yourself lucky, but don't try to deny their existence or assume your own experiences are universal.
Clearly people of every ilk exist, but my claim is that people like this are irrelevant to the debate around socialized healthcare. Show me an American politician who's run on the platform of openly wanting to hurt the poor because they deserve to be hurt, their electoral victory, and that person's vote against a socialized healthcare initiative. It's not a thing.
Regan's "welfare queen" comes to mind. More recent examples were those against stimulus checks (but very much for PPP "loans"). Any politician who believes in means-testing, when the bureaucracy adds an overhead greater than the amount saved is arguably out to hurt the undeserving.
You can't deny the politics of retribution exists, because politicians only give oblique references to it; voters certainly believe it, hence one voter who complained about Covid shutdowns thusly: "He's not hurting the people he needs to be"
The resistance to socialized healthcare in America can be easily understood without resorting to bizarre strawmen about hating poor people. Healthcare is of course a huge part of our economy and lives. Many (most?) people are satisfied with the status quo and are hesitant to see (what they consider to be) a huge increase in government power, spending, and general involvement in their lives. It's the same impulse that motivates people to oppose new housing -- people are loss averse and hate change.
Yes, the resistance is because the private sector will lose a lot of (parasitic) jobs. It's a non-starter to attempt to reduce health insurance companies power, because it would gut their employee numbers.
It's an unsavory thought, but the US has a significant amount of people employed in the business of denying healthcare to other people, which amounts to hundreds of thousands of jobs.
Any politician attempting to fix this would be committing political suicide.
We do not have an established history of accurately predicting or managing the costs of overwhelmingly expensive government programs, at least here in the US.
The US already runs two government healthcare programs. There are 65 million people in Medicare and 83 million in Medicaid. For less money per patient than private insurance.
This attitude is why EU countries are mostly quite poor compared to the US and have relatively unproductive and low-tech economies. You bring it upon yourself.
Are you talking about me, personally, or Americans in general? I suppose it doesn't really matter - you'd be wrong in either case. The median person in the poorest US state is richer than the median person in the UK, for example.
Most Americans grumble about paying for healthcare, and we are getting ripped off, but it's also very rare for someone to actually die because they can't afford it. Anyone in the top, say, 80% of American society has some form of employer-subsidized insurance.
> The median person in the poorest US state is richer than the median person in the UK, for example.
This is due to the garbage GDP numbers. Based on these, the quality of life in the Mississippi is better than in Japan. Not a single chance. The US numbers are highly inflated by the financial sector and real estate. It'll take a financial crisis and dethroning of US dollar to show how truly poor these places are.
GDP and GDP PPP are almost irrelevant with regards to personal wealth or lack thereof. A factory making billions to its owner doesn't improve the revenues, wealth or standard of living of more than 1 person. A factory producing luxury Louis Vuitton handbags is good for GDP and the wealth of the factory owner, but is irrelevant to the living conditions of the workers. A private equity firm making wild bets is very "productive", GDP wise, but again , entirely irrelevant at a personal level. Even the worker's salary is tough to compare in isolation between countries because of the vastly different costs of living - an American having to pay tens of thousands of student loans back, with obscene housing prices, absurdly expensive healthcare... $200k/year in San Francisco might not get you as far as e.g. 100€k/year in Berlin (throwing numbers for illustration, haven't actually done the math).
> A factory making billions to its owner doesn't improve the revenues, wealth or standard of living of more than 1 person... A factory producing luxury Louis Vuitton handbags... is irrelevant to the living conditions of the workers
> Come on, this is Econ 101 and basic logic.
You griping about luxury goods on principle isn't "Econ 101" or "basic logic".
You can look at basically any material metric you like (cars owned, house size, etc.) and Americans come out ahead. Nominal GDP numbers are kind of nonsense, but they're directionally the same nonsense everywhere, so they actually work OK as an international comparison.
> The amount of cars Americans have on absurd loans is entirely irrelevant to their personal wealth or lack thereof.
The allocation of debt is essentially irrelevant - there are materially more, bigger, better cars per capita in the USA. Whether those cars get repo'd and transferred to richer Americans is irrelevant - you can't fake the material presence of more stuff.
And the above attitude is why the US is a joke with people who can't afford education, healthcare, or a home, 70+ yo still working their ass off in McJobs, crumbling public infrastructure, homeless and billionaires laughing all the way to the bank...
Then you're comparing countries with better distributed quality of life based on GDP or the presence of billionaires and unicorns, as if between you, Zuck, and Musk you have an average wealth of $500B. There are much poorer GDP-wise countries where people live better and are happier than the US :)
> And the above attitude is why the US is a joke with people who can't afford education, healthcare, or a home
The median American has all of these things better than the median European, except maybe healthcare. That's tough to compare. Some countries like the UK clearly have worse healthcare than the US.
Most of the top colleges are American. American homes tend to be much larger and nice than European homes.
> Then you're comparing countries with better distributed quality of life based on GDP
The distribution is really not that skewed. In most states, median income is within 40% of mean income.
Whether you compare median or mean, Americans reliably come out ahead, except for a few small Euro countries (mostly tax havens for American companies).
> Whether you compare median or mean, Americans reliably come out ahead, except for a few small Euro countries (mostly tax havens for American companies).
>The median American has all of these things better than the median European, except maybe healthcare.
How about the median Western European (including nordic)?
>Most of the top colleges are American.
Yes, because that's where the money and companies are. Those concern a miniscule minority of the population - with most either not having access to education, or only through huge personal debt. And even there, take away the majority Europeans, Asians, Indians, etc doing the research in these (after having been educated in their local countries), and it would be a wasteland.
>Some countries like the UK clearly have worse healthcare than the US
The UK had better healthcare than the US for the average person, it only fell behind because of opening itself up too much because of immigration (without sufficient funding increases) and also because of following US-like neoliberal policies in the past 20 years or so that hurt the NHS.
>Whether you compare median or mean, Americans reliably come out ahead, except for a few small Euro countries (mostly tax havens for American companies).
US ranks 3 by mean but 15 by median. It's ahead of most European by mean but by median most West European are ahead. And this doesn't adjust for property prices.
>US ranks 3 by mean but 15 by median. It's ahead of most European by mean but by median most West European are ahead.
Yep! And the European countries behind include like ex-soviet bloc countries and such (basically starting from very low in 1989-1991). And as you not, the cost differences (not accounted in the table) push European countries even further than this ranking.
Besides mean vs median, I'd point also quality of life factors not measured in dollars or euros.
GDPR is really sensible legislation that largely only applies to companies who should be treating your personal data as sensitive data. I built a GDPR complaint system and was really happy about the security we put in place that we definitely wouldn’t have thought to do without these laws. Things like having someone you can ask and request personal data from at big companies is also an extremely well thought through idea. I don’t understand the issues people have with it to be honest…
Most people have no problem with the GDPR. It only seems otherwise on this forum and similar echo chambers / bubbles where lots of people made their fortunes with adtech.
I love the intention of the law, but it's so... flexible... in implementation that shitty implementers ended up making the browsing experience horrible with intrusive pop-ups and geo blocking.
On mobile every page load ends up with me spending the first minute or so on page dealing with the half-screen "don't sell my info" cookie dance, followed with the ad-block pop-ups.
My only complaint with GDPR is when I have to do boring work in the name of GDPR compliance :)
But it's also driven some pretty interesting projects, so I'd probably call it a wash or perhaps a slight positive, even if I were to ignore the major benefits as a consumer
What an utterly ridiculous response. In your eyes, businesses should be able to run roughshod over the consumer? Yes, maybe the laws could have been more polished or have been implemented in a better way, but the underlying idea of protecting the consumer is the important takeaway from these laws.
On HN, you can be sure there are several people who literally believe the world would be better without any regulations or laws forcing businesses to do anything. This place is the pinnacle of anarcho-capitalism.
at least here there's a spectrum of views that largely get by peacefully, and the entire place isn't focused on that conflict, a la twitter. yes there are lot of right-wing headcases entirely taken up by their own bottom-line, and yes the place itself is broadly funded and owned by people who think like, or at the very least, act like anarcho-capitalists, but they only really float to the surface when a post about regulation comes up, and even then, the discussion stays mostly civil. it could be a lot worse
It could be worse of course, but it's something that needs to be kept in mind when using this site. I really think it should be a publicly-posted disclaimer.
to also be fair, I just recently returned from Europe and I was shocked at how maddeningly frustrating it was to simply use the Web. Between shockingly obtrusive GDPR consent forms and outright blocks on Websites from EU consumers, it was a wild look at what Europeans have to go through under the guise of consumer protections.
Like, the pendulum swung WAY too far in the other direction.
As much as the idea of GDPR (and specifically cookie consent) is well intentioned, the actual laws themselves aren't great. Cookie consent is especially frustrating because it encourages the creators of the consent popups to use dark patterns to try and trick people into just accepting them.
Correct, but unfortunately that applies to the vast majority of websites. It wouldn't be so bad if the consent dialogs had an option to reject all optional cookies but unfortunately too many of them still try and trick or force you into accepting all cookies.
> Cookie consent only apply to non-necessary cookies.
There’s a different issue here: lawyers and companies are often concerned that what they deem necessary will be deemed unnecessary when challenged. So, they require cookie consent preemptively to avoid liability in case they get it wrong.
Hell, a lot of the 3rd party companies who are contracted to build the cookie consent forms are even following the spirit of the law (barely) by including a one click "reject all" button or link in the pop ups. They are often somewhat downplayed, like being in a smaller font or slightly hidden, because fuck you, but are you really so damn lazy that clicking "reject all" once every hour is such an objectionable activity that you'd rather just dump any and all consumer protections of data?
Not under the guise. They are consumer protections. As a European, I like them very much.
It surfaces which websites use stronger tactics to track you, and which allow consumer friendly opt-outs. There are even many websites that don’t need the notices as they don’t use cookies for tracking a natural person (their cookies are not associated with personally identifiable information).
So we can choose what we use because we are informed.
It surfaces which websites use stronger tactics to track you, and which allow consumer friendly opt-outs.
The problem is I didn't see a single web site that I visited where this was apparent. It was a mess of opt-in pop-ups and settings and whatnot that completely overwhelmed me with actionable things I had to do before I could interact with a site, and often many companies clearly just said F it and blocked anyone from Europe.
It becomes apparent after a while. Generally, the websites that have very intrusive pop-ups or no real way to opt-out of associating cookies with personally identifiable information (that is what the notice is for) present themselves as information abusers, and that is a very important signal. I have very low trust that they respect privacy or have it as a value in their business. So it's good to know I shouldn't use their services nor hand over any personal data.
Some websites have become region-locked, but I found that it's mostly those who cater to American audiences anyways. Perhaps if you travelled to Europe, this was more of a problem for you because you wanted to read the local news back home. For us, back home is here, so local American websites region-locking us out isn't a big inconvenience. They probably only do this if European audiences don't make up much of their readership anyways — they wouldn't want to lose significant ad revenue.
Imagine if companies didn't collect copious amounts of user data and didn't try to use every trick in the book and all known dark patterns to make you give up that data.
"We care about privacy by selling your data to 2765 'partners' and are blaming GDPR for this"
AFAIK many cookie consent banners are actually against the law. IIUC denying any non-essential cookies should always be as easy as accepting all cookies. This is something many cookie banners have not managed.
So to me this seems more like the tech-companies and websites being annoying at implementing an easy solution, in order to rebel against the laws and make people angry at it for the inconvenience, then the law itself being bad.
I'm not talking about drone legislation here in Europe, but state overreach in tech in general + bad scene for startups compared to the US (for now...) due to politics.
Granted the chat control issue, is unfortunate on the privacy front, however I wouldn't call it a hindrance on innovation.
IMO, often innovation happens because it is motivated to work around rules and regulations. So in many cases regulation and rules are what drives innovation. People want to hack the system and thus have to innovate. A completely hacked and open system doesn't really inspire new ideas, because the old ones just work fine already.
The US had an entire decade of war on cryptography that was literally required to safely transact on the internet, and yet the 90s had plenty of online store startups.
any number of reasons: language barriers, existing American firms anti-competing, smaller domestic markets, less centralisation, and, yes, in some cases, regulation, but, when it comes down to it, it's better to have smaller firms that don't (or less frequently) damage society than larger firms than do, even just from the perspective of wealth distribution.
I think he's saying that, yes, this regulation means that your own companies are more ethical, but European consumers end up using these less-regulated American companies anyway. this is true, but this problem has started to be solved by the EU anyway, for example, with the Digital Markets and Services Acts
Entity formation time; time and capital required to hire the first N employees; number, cost and time of licensing required before first sale can be made. Each are higher in Europe. Combine that with the multiple languages and regulators which inhibits scale and you get the present situation.
Which, I will note, is fine. It’s optimised for stability, not wealth. On the other hand, it naturally means having to choose between American and Chinese tech giants.
> Entity formation time; time and capital required to hire the first N employees; number, cost and time of licensing required before first sale can be made. Each are higher in Europe.
Which Europe? All of those can be done online with minimal effort or upfront investment in many EU countries. Do you mean Belarus?
> Combine that with the multiple languages and regulators which inhibits scale and you get the present situation.
This is true, because the EU is composed of 20+ different countries, each with different languages, cultures, histories, priorities. It's impossible to remove that boundary.
> All of those can be done online with minimal effort or upfront investment in many EU countries. Do you mean Belarus?
Each of them can be done online in most countries. All, very few. I think only Estonia comes to mind. (At least one form in that process requires visiting a notary in most of Western Europe.)
The cost of terminating an employee is also a unique risk that European firms have to capitalise for which American start-ups do not. Again, I understand why one would choose this stability. But it comes with a cost.
> It's impossible to remove that boundary
It's absolutely possible by mandating a lingua franca. But it would cause irreparable damage to those cultures, which is why the EU--sensibly, in my opinoin--has chosen to preserve them. But this is a choice and it comes with costs.
I've heard offhand here that the ease of starting a business in general is easier in the US and that funding for tech startups is more available in the US due to policy.
Regulation isn't going to stop innovation that much, or the tech industry wouldn't be in california. The primary difference is that the US is one homogenous, huge market.
If I build something in California, to California's laws, and it becomes a success, I can immediately sell it across the entire rest of the US, and I can expand across the US, using the same employment contracts as in california, same lawyers as in california, etc.
Sure, later on I can save money by making the Delaware version of my product with more cancerous chemicals, or have stricter NDAs in my Florida contracts.
But if I start with California regulations, I can expand to the entire US with a small team of employees.
There's nothing like that in Europe. If my product works in Germany, I'll need a french, spanish, italian translation to sell it in these countries. I can't just hire people from these countries either — they've got different holidays, different work hours, different unions I'll have to deal with. Different tax codes and agencies. And often these are conflicting with one another.
In the US, I need one or two support shifts in one or two languages. In the EU I need 27. In the US, I need one version of the product, with one plug. In the EU, unless I'm okay with 10A and a plastic chassis, I need a dozen different versions.
And even if the product can be used universally, European culture is significantly more diverse than US culture.
Is a phone call at 7am or 8pm more appropriate? Depends on whether you're in Germany or Spain. When a job applicant includes a photo of themselves and lists their parents' degrees and jobs on their own CV, is that appropriate or not? In Germany, that's often expected, in many other regions, a huge no-go.
To be successful in the US, I need to build one company. To be successful in the EU, I need to build a multinational corporation with 27 local branches.
Also since national markets in Europe are relatively big by themselves a lot of companies tend to be satisfied with comfort of a single market success.
And once you've got control of one EU country, expanding to another EU country is just as complicated as expanding to the US is.
So if you're spending the same effort anyway, expanding to the US with 300 million people is much more profitable than expanding to Germany with 80 million people, or the Netherlands with 20 million people.
Which is why Spotify became available in Sweden, the US, and the rest of the EU in that order.
> Which is why Spotify became available in Sweden, the US, and the rest of the EU in that order.
Which is verifiably false.
Spotify launched in 2006, and expanded into the US in 2011. You truly believe that it never expanded in the EU in the intervening 5 years? How then did it launch in the UK in 2009? Or how did it have a million paying customers in the EU by the time they launched in the US?
There's literally a section on the Wikipedia article detailling how it launched in a handful of countries, expanded to the US, and only then expanded to most of the EU:
Spotify launched in Sweden, Finland, France, Norway, Spain, followed by the United Kingdom and the Netherlands.
After the US expansion, Spotify finally expanded to Andorra, Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Monaco, Poland, Portugal, Slovakia and Switzerland
That means Spotify launched for 222 million europeans, expanded to 300 million US-americans, before becoming available for the remaining 281 europeans.
You'd never see a US company launching e.g. only for Washington, Oregon, California and Nevada, expanding to China, and only afterwards become available in the remaining states.
> Which is why Spotify became available in Sweden, the US, and the rest of the EU in that order.
All that matters is the original comment: "Which is why Spotify became available in Sweden, the US, and the rest of the EU in that order."
Where reality is Spotify became available in 7 countries before attempting to expand in the US.
Which is, funnily, what you literally wrote in your edit:
> That means Spotify launched for 222 million europeans, expanded to 300 million US-americans, before becoming available for the remaining 281 europeans.
Edit Where by "expanded to the US" is literally "failed to capture any significant market for a long time"
> Edit Where by "expanded to the US" is literally "failed to capture any significant market for a long time"
Sure, but they still decided to expand to the US, despite a worse outlook, before expanding to the remaining EU countries. As said, you'd never see a US company do that.
The US is a large, rich homogeneous market with a population of over 300 million. There's no wonder foreign companies want to get a foothold in this market, and it's no wonder US companies don't tend to look outside of the US until there's nothing to do in the US.
Sure, but that's exactly my point: The primary factor limiting EU startups isn't regulation, it's that they don't have access to a large, homogeneous, monolinguistic market
California's tech industry works because there is a long-established tradition of lawbreaking in California. We pass all these regulations, and then ignore them. Sometimes the more enlightened legislators put in explicit carve-outs for businesses of less than 50 employees or a $B in revenue, so that startups don't have to actually break the law, they can just ignore it. But they're going to ignore it anyway, so the carve outs really serve the law's benefit rather than the startup.
In practice, the way California tech startups work is
1) Break *all* the laws.
2) Get customers
3) Raise capital
4) Profit!
5) Hire lawyers to bring the company into compliance with the laws.
6) Hire lobbyists to bring the laws into compliance with the company.
7) Try to prevent your employees from doing the same thing you did.
Steps #5-6 aren't limited to a particular state. At that point, you have buckets of money anyway, so you contort your company structure and product into a configuration that is legal in as many jurisdictions as possible, including internationally.
You’re discounting the fact that there’s plenty of internal movement in Europe - I worked with a French firm that had a bunch of Italians, some Swiss, an Englishman, two Spaniards and a bunch of Russians working there along with the French people, all living around and working in their Paris office.
It wouldn’t be that hard to find people to translate your app and provide support in the major languages in most large European cities.
In the US, you don't have to find people to translate your app and provide support in other languages at all. It would help if you did this for Spanish though, but that's it.
It's a meme on Twitter, essentially libertarians are pushing the idea that EU killed its tech industry through heavy reagulation and by tech they mean online advertisement.
They keep posting graphs of market capitalisation claiming that Europe must be failing because doesn't have speculative public trading stocks. There's also the top-list theme, making list of top-10 companies by market cap, claiming that if your country doesn't have monopolistic speculative giant public companies you must be failing.
It's very annoying because its very repetitive, I guess they are trying the Goebbles' propaganda technique of keep repeating something until people believe in it.
Someone really really wants to turn the European economy into this short term high growth long term who cares casino that the US has become.
Define success. If it's high stock market cap calculated by multiplying the number of shares with the last trade price Europe doesn't have many of those.
I’d flip the question and ask you by what metrics Europes tech sector is performing comparatively well. Employment? Average salary? ARR? I struggle to think of a metric that’s a positive outlier.
If we are talking about tech companies, as stated in the great-grandparent comment, tech employees in the US have as much or more vacation time as Europeans. I can easily take multi-month vacations if I so choose (with some prior planning and assent of course), and that is a similar story for other tech employees too. The difference is that we just get paid much more for the same work.
They are allocated a good number of PTO hours, but Americans are really bad at taking them. I also could take that long of a vacation too, technically, but I never have and realistically never would.
I guess, that's on them then. One could say the same of those types of Europeans who don't take vacation either. Personally I'm taking everything I'm allocated.
Longevity, happiness, health, leisure, life satisfaction. Companies are there to make these possible, not to maximise the stock trading price. Some achieve that by making EUV lithography machines, others do chemicals or pharmaceuticals.
Are you aware that you can use the developer tools in your browser to set the price of the stock or your bank account balance to anything you like? You don't have to crumble your infrastructure, run from the mentally ill homeless people or bankrupt sick people to see those numbers.
If you insist on extra steps, you can sell a stock to your friend at ridiculous price and say that that this company is now bigger than the worlds' economy combined.
> Longevity, happiness, health, leisure, life satisfaction
Apart from longevity[1], everything else is subjective so do you have any evidence? From what I see based on a quick search, happiness level seems same in US/Canada vs Germany/France. eg. Rankings by this[2] measure: Canada(15), USA(23), Germany(24), France(27). Or scores by this[3] measure: Canada (6.9), USA(6.7), Germany(6.7), France(6.6)
[1] Even longevity is full of caveats and nuances. When you look at life expectancy by ethnicity, a given ethnicity has similar life expectancy across different advanced countries (eg. Japanese-Americans vs Japanese in Japan). It doesn't even seem to be correlated by income in the US, because latinos have a higher life expectancy than whites[4] even though later group is richer than the former.
> Longevity, happiness, health, leisure, life satisfaction. Companies are there to make these possible, not to maximise the stock trading price.
No? This is exactly the opposite of why companies exist, they are specifically there to increase the stock price via development of their products. That we get better happiness via rising wealth standards is just a coincidence, albeit a very useful and historically true coincidence. And even then, companies can last quite a while trudging along but it will stop at some point if new innovation is not kept up in the form of new companies (as older companies are usually at capacity for hiring). Look at the youth unemployment rate in many European countries compared to the US.
> Are you aware that you can use the developer tools in your browser to set the price of the stock or your bank account balance to anything you like? You don't have to crumble your infrastructure, run from the mentally ill homeless people or bankrupt sick people to see those numbers.
Changing a measure does not change the underlying thing it's measuring, no more than I can time travel by changing a clock. Obviously people are talking about what those numbers represent, not the numbers themselves. GDP is a useful enough concept as I mentioned above, one that correlates well to overall citizen wealth. Europeans are generally quite a bit poorer than Americans, even with the addition of the value of free (or rather, "free") healthcare. Tech employees are even more so advantaged, as their health insurance is excellent while they make multiples of their European counterparts. It is not "libertarian" to acknowledge this fact, and it's one of the main reasons you see many European tech people moving to the US and Silicon Valley.
Right, that's why at the heart of the tech innovation peple are running from mentally ill homeless people the insulating themselves in gated communities to pretend like living in a german village. Huge success.
I wouldn't obsess too much with the GDP too, its not as good as a proxy to the important stuff as people are trying to make it. An appendicitis surgery generates much more economic activity in USA than in Europe and Americans don't end with better appendixes.
Those have 1% of the revenue compared to the top American tech companies (individual, not combined). The rest are private and I suspect have even less revenue. If those are the best examples of "tech successes" you can think of, you're proving the parent commenter's point.
I don't know why the parent is calling out those companies, strange list.
Europe has plenty of very successful, influential, and tech heavy organizations. ARM and AirBus come immediately to mind. Car manufacturers such as VW or BMW. Software companies such as SAP. Some of the largest banks and fossil fuel companies in the world.
Aren't those American companies (other than Samsung)? I mean, they're all global/multi-national like most big corps, so it's not as clean as that. But it seems like you're actually agreeing with the parent...
Except Intel, all the hardware is produced in Taiwan or abroad at TSMC.
Samsung and Intel ( + all others) buy their fabs at ASML.
Cars: my preference is still German ( and Toyota). Tesla is really low build quality and it's claims for FSD ( as it's "technological innovation") is a joke. But, Waymo is ahead though.
If you zoom in on the just the hardware production market then yes sure, although that seems more an artifact of a small number of highly specialized manufacturers than evidence of startup friendliness, otherwise I'd expect to see a bunch of competing manufacturers rather than a handful of huge ones.
In the context of this conversation also, when we say "tech" we're usually talking about much more than just hardware production (especially software). A huge chunk of the value-add is from the software and other use cases that the tech company adds to the hardware. But even just looking at hardware, a ton of that hardware is designed in the US and just sent out for manufacturing. The physical manufacturing is just a piece of the whole.
But even all that aside, none of those major manufacturers seem to be in Europe, so I don't see how even zooming in on the hardware makes a point about Europe not having barriers and/or friction.
As an aside, to be clear, I'm not making any value judgments here by saying just because things are done somewhere means that is better. There's a lot more to the equation than just that, which is easily illustrated with a hypothetical example. If you enslaved a population you could get a lot of business by doing things cheaply, but it obviously wouldn't be a "better" place just because it's the easiest/cheapest place to get business is done.
>Or public infrastructure, or transportation, or electric cars etc.
Arguably all of those is more due to government intervention than the companies themselves. Nuclear is impossible to build in the US due to overburdensome regulations, infrastructure/transportation is impossible to build due to NIMBY-friendly planning rules, electric cars are massively subsidized by the Chinese government.
Right, China achieve all this thanks to its libertarian low touch low regulation small government and only if the stock prices of the American companies go a bit higher and the government is a tad less regulated they will do even better than the Chinese.
Not all regulation is bad, but also, not all regulation is good. Regulation is meaningless in a vacuum. I support more consumer protection regulation, but also, I support YIMBYism [0] which is a deregulatory model that wants to remove restrictions on housing, which were largely made by corporations and NIMBYs who don't want their property values to go down if new housing is built. YIMBYism is actually very similar to how Europe builds their housing, via mixed zone development.
It is the same with your comment, saying that it's only libertarians or those who want low regulation is a strawman, it depends on exactly which type of regulation. China can achieve some things with its big government ways, but it can't achieve everything.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/YIMBY_movement
The economic case for nuclear is mostly what keeps it from being built in the USA. The USA built a lot of nuclear power plants in the 70s/80s, and they didn't really pay off even with the government providing free insurance coverage. Likewise, today it is even harder to make the case for a new nuclear power plant since renewables are much cheaper on a kW basis.
Chinese regulation is neither too high nor too low. It would be impossible to build a nuclear plant if the government didn't firmly back it, otherwise there are no barriers that it can't ignore.
IMHO it has nothing to do with the governments, in Europe there's no that kind of money and the investor mentality is very different than the Americans and the European culture is much less accommodating to failure.
It's the European way to roll, the Brits are trying to be a bit more like the Americans but its worlds apart. The American spirit is something else, I wish we had it in Europe but maybe its not compatible at all with the European way of life. So, if you feel adventurous, motivated and ambitious you go to USA to make it big.
There's no speculative stocks in Europe? Seriously? I guess if you ignore all the stock markets in Europe, sure?
Also, it's funny that you mention Goebels. It's ironic even when you repeat the same tropes about the US and how it's supposedly beholden to the capital markets and speculators.
Europe has its giants. Europe usually does not attack its giants. That's why you get megacorps like Maersk or Airbus or Volkswagen. The entire point is that it only attacks other giants (ie, not homegrown giants), hence the focus on legislation that mostly affects them but leaves European corporations mostly unscathed. Or why green legislation curiously doesn't affect German coal extraction (what a coincidence!) that much. Or all the other double standards Europe and some Europeans love so much.
The delusion here is this weird narrative of good, noble Europeans who are somehow only guilty of not being greedy.
Europe is far from noble, just different mentality and expectations from life. VW keep saying that next year VW Golf robotaxis are coming and not delivering wouldn't fly, therefore we don't have crazy stock prices.
Airbus keeps making good quality planes that don't fall from the skies, selling those then flying around. It's alright, I don't know why the government should attack Airbus but maybe the US government should have kept Boeing in check.
Europeans have their ways and Americans have theirs. Let's keep it like that and not put all the eggs in the same basket, as it appears that Chinese came up with another hugely successful economy model.
Sure but that wasn't the main thrust of what I was replying to. Also, I guess it only has its own Wireguards or (if we want to talk about inflated promises instead of outright fraud) hundreds of start up like Qwant that promised to challenge the big American man in (2) more weeks or just a few more subsidies.
The only difference is that we hear a lot more about American success and failures as they are sadly utterly dominant in media presence way beyond their own borders. And Europe seems much more likely to just keep its skeletons hidden in its closet, and tries to talk about them as little as possible.
(For example,see how the German regulators dealt with Wireguard by going after the journalists that sounded the alarm for years. Or how Europeans love to discuss American issues like racism while ignoring how much worse the issue can be in their own backyard. Or the commenters here that recoil at any criticism of the EU and invent some conspiracy where said criticism obviously comes from. I never see any American accuse Europeans of being behind sentiment that is critical of the US.)
Americans love to be very loud about their issues, for better or for worse.
Yes, or at least its leadership had ties to Russian security services. Yet European authorities were more than complacent with them, in a way that the SEC would rarely be especially after 6 years of red flags. I don't think German financial authorities were also Russian controlled so my point, that Europe is very pro corporate as long as the corporations are European, still stands I think even with the Russian connection in this case!
The current conflict with China has the benefit that it dropped all of them masks off. You'd be labeled a conspiracy theorist if you suggested otherwise to the narrative of the free trading liberal west.
Now that the emperor is fully naked; colonialism never ceased to exist, it just took a different form. The next decade is going to be very interesting, and not in a good way.
I recently moved to Spain, after having lived in the US for a decade. It's only been a month for me and I definitely see the over-reaching over-regulation of EVERYTHING in the EU.
It's so much that it literally pushes young people to have a non-risk taking mindset. I have a friend who has some knife sharpening and tooling skills and she's been figuring how to do something with this (some kind of a business). I suggested why not get a garage and get the machinery you want and get started. She listed down all the regulations and how even thinking about it is not allowed.
Starting a business/startups is hard. The EU just adds 10-20 more hurdles to cross to get even with the US startup ecosystem. At least that's been my observation in the few weeks.
That's probably not an EU thing, you should consider an EU country more suitable to your line of business. Or you know, just do your thing don't bother with the regulations and pay a fine if it becomes a problem some time in the future?
Apparently Spaniards like it this way, they live long healthy lives in the system they set up for themselves.
That someone can buy new DJI drones in europe is right, but only the latest releases. You cannot use any of the drones you might have purchased over the last years anymore in europe because of the new regulations.
I think the situation is far more nuanced than what will be debateable here, but I've had friends that tried to do tech startups in Europe and ended up moving to the US and doing it here. This is surely not a representative sample so take with a grain of salt, but generally speaking this is their (paraphrased) analysis:
In Europe it just takes a lot more capital investment to get started. You can't do it as a side-gig with a hope/dream working nights and weekends like you can in the US. The process to MVP is just way more complicated because there's a ton of compliance/legal stuff that has to be there at launch. The actual product might take 60 hours of work to build, but then there's another 200 hours of compliance to do which doesn't add any product value at all. You also typically have to hire an expert to help at least consult, because trying to do it all yourself just requires you to have a ton of expertise that no single person ever has. Hiring is also a mixed bag. Market salaries in Europe are a lot less which helps, but firing a bad fit is also way harder so there's big risk. You also can't offer stock-based comp as much in Europe as you can in the US, which all serves to make it harder to get launched.
Once you reach a certain scale, Europe can be just as friendly or more-so than the US, but that scale acts as a great filter for people that don't already have the deep pockets to fund things on their own to get to that point, and most investors won't take that kind of risk without validating product-market fit. The European culture of more longevity also makes it easier in some ways to keep a young company stable because people aren't constantly leaving and you aren't constantly in bidding wars for talent. Overall it's just a mixed bag, but that early filter is why you don't see as many working-class people doing a tech startup in Europe and making it big. On the flip side, when companies make it through that filter, they tend to be a lot healthier and more viable, and quality tends to be higher. Again these are generalities.
I suspect you're over-egging the amount of compliance that needs to be done and under-egging the filter of the existing big players mostly being American, who buy up competitors in order to maintain market dominance
Okay, but what will happen if US goes to war with China?
This can happen much quicker and easier than you think. Some Chinese delusional leader is going to attack Taiwan and voila, all the import from China will immediately stop at that exact moment.
> Okay, but what will happen if US goes to war with China?
Actual armed conflict? Total annihilation. Neither side wants this. Its why China will not invade Taiwan, and why the US won't put its boot on the neck of the China.
The US literally has troops 6 miles off the coast of China and they haven’t reacted beyond some complaining in press releases. China won’t be fighting either the US or Taiwan anytime soon
Other than waiting to see where things shake out with the Senate, perhaps Sony? I can't speak to manufacturer support, and not sure Sony will stay in the drone game in the long term where it would feel like a sound investment.
I've been looking at other commercial-esque options (mainly photogrammetry) and came across Sony's"bring your own DSLR" drone.
> It's disheartening to witness the US embracing protectionism for high-tech
Is it? I suspect China has zero regrets in embracing protectionism for social media. The American drone consumer will get squeezed for a few years, until the US develops decent home-grown suppliers in a strategic industry. Hard to think of a better limited use of protectionism tbh.
Speaking as a Canadian, U.S. trade protectionism is nothing new. It happens all the time and frequently targets allies like Canada rather than rivals like China. What U.S. citizens should watch out for is when U.S. protectionism winds up hurting the U.S.'s own economy. e.g. Tariffs on Canadian softwood lumber may have helped out a few U.S. softwood lumber producers with good lobbyists (and Jimmy Carter), but the increase in lumber prices had a much larger negative impact on the U.S. economy as a whole due to higher costs of building materials impacting pretty much everyone.
That's a large part of the issue, though. The narrative 10 years ago was that we were preventing Chinese from dumping low-cost crap on the U.S. market. Okay, fair enough, keep the crap out. But recent U.S. protectionism has been targeting very high-quality, best-in-class Chinese manufacturers that honestly outcompete anything their U.S. competitors bring to market. Without that competition, there's no incentive for U.S. makers to raise their technological game, and the sector just stagnates and falls behind the rest of the world.
North America has the benefit of two oceans for national defense, but the risk associated with that is one of insularity and stagnation. Ask an indigenous person (if you can find one) how well being a couple hundred years behind European technological development worked out once hostile colonists are on your shores.
They were at least 2000 years behind Europe in weapons and armor technology. Some cultures had bronze weapons, but no iron smelting or steel.
Even before muskets started becoming common, European professional infantry had largely abandoned shields. Mass produced plate armor provided sufficient protection from arrows, and two-handed pikes were better than a pike and a shield.
On the other hand, bows became more effective again as muskets improved. When a musket could penetrate any reasonable armor, personal protection became less important.
Indeed, and we never seem to learn. Lumber prices in the US during Covid were eye-watering and wreaked havoc through the whole economy that is still being felt today, and it was almost entirely due to US protectionism of lumber.
I'm not a fan of protectionism either, but that particular example is not true at all.
Lumber prices rose because at the start of the pandemic, the industry predicted a housing crash and took drastic steps to downsize and then the exact opposite happened. And we were left with a garden-variety supply vs demand situation.
Protectionism, like industry subsidies, is a double-edged sword.
- On the one hand, as SE Asia is intimately familiar with, it can create space to create globally competitive industries.
- On the other hand, it can also remove the incentive for local industries to invest and become technically competitive.
IMHO, what I'd like to see would be a stricter link between protection measures and R&D investment.
If an industry is protected, then it is required to prove it's improving itself + limit returns to shareholders.
E.g. steadily increasing CAFE fuel efficiency standards, requirements to demonstrate decreasing costs of production (lumber and/or steel), etc.
Too often, protection measures are implemented, the excess benefits are skimmed and go directly to shareholders, and the company doesn't increase its global competitiveness (e.g. US Steel).
So... what WILL help america compete with China? (without playing the same game) How could the US build out a competitive drone industry with chinese manufacturers able to cut price because the Chinese government will cover the gap?
Drones are not yet an "essential" piece of technology for the country as a whole. We're currently at "cutting ourselves off at the toe" territory... in a few years we'd be even more dependent and legislation like this would be catastrophic. Better now than in the 2026.
Surely the feds pumped a bunch of cash into electric vehicle domestic production, alongside a tariff on imports. We could start supporting domestic production of drones? There's obviously a market.
Presumably this is the actual answer—they're just better at manufacturing than we are at this point. By a large margin, as well. There is no shortcut to reversing decades and decades of shipping entire supply chains overseas at greatly reduced cost. We're just going to get substandard products at a greater cost to both the taxpayer (subsidy option) and the consumer (market option).
> How could the US build out a competitive drone industry with chinese manufacturers able to cut price because the Chinese government will cover the gap?
You swallow your losses until you automate your way out of a labor disadvantage or give up. Frankly the only reason this is getting attention is because it's seen as a military asset. It's basically burning cash to make the pentagon feel better about itself and generate a few hundred jobs at great cost to the taxpayer and pretending this is making some effort towards something valuable.
I disagree with the EU on a lot of things, but when it comes to tech and privacy in particular, they're the gold standard in putting individual people first. As someone deeply involved in my company's compliance with GDPR, it can't be overstated how important it is.
All Xi has to do is stop barreling towards an invasion of Taiwan.
The U.S., Europe, and Japan need to create and enhance a drone industrial base before China invades Taiwan. By the time it has invaded, creating the industrial base will be too late.
Also, China has created DJI through government-sponsored industrial policy, not via open markets.
the roots of silicon valley are in the decades of military contracts, initially, i.e. in the "government-sponsored industrial policy" https://youtu.be/ZTC_RxWN_xo?t=3546
Most hardware has no reason to require direct internet access or an account with the manufacturer to work. If some device requires internet access, then it cannot be trusted to not transmit personal data, therefore it should be possible to replace the software on that device, so that something that is trusted by the consumer can be installed.
While DJI here might create good hardware, their internet and account requirement makes it uncontrollable by the consumer, so I do understand that some consumers or, the possible more security aware US, will not trust it. But for the same reason China and other countries might not trust Apple or similar.
Trust is something that needs to be earned and which has to go both ways, if a company doesn't trust their users, and prevents people using their bought products however they like, then why should their users trust the company and let their uncontrollable software record their private lives and possible report back to them?
While I agree with you, I doubt banning Chinese tech will remedy this problem. My experience is that American brands are much, much more aggressive about making you connect to the internet, install our apps, create an account, subscribe to our newsletter etc.
Look at the difference between iRobot and Chinese robot vacuums on Amazon - the difference is night and day.
I was just talking about my experience with DJI. Where you buy a product, can use it for a bit, and then it stops working, because you haven't connected it to the internet or created an account.
It is often the 'market leaders' that are so afraid to loose customers and their market position to implement customer hostile processes into their products.
> American brands are much, much more aggressive about making you connect to the internet, install our apps, create an account
This whataboutism ignores one very important point.
When you connect a device to an American company they might do things that we consider privacy violations, while still staying generally within the bounds of the law. We like to joke about data going to the NSA or something, but in the extremely limited cases where it does protections exist with oversight.
Contrast this to Chinese companies where by law every company is part-owned by the government itself. The Ministry of State Security literally has employees who show up to these companies every day like normal workers, but their job is to find and exploit intelligence on foreign individuals and businesses.
> This whataboutism ignores one very important point.
Reverse whataboutism is still whataboutism.
For example this predicate
> while still staying generally within the bounds of the law.
Completely ignores the fact that US companies have been found lying and deceiving to circumvent the barriers posed by the law.
But not only US companies, remember the diesel gate?
This other predicate
> (In China) by law every company is part-owned by the government itself
It's completely false, while this one
> The Ministry of State Security literally has employees who show up to these companies every day like normal workers
It's pure intellectual dishonesty . Every sufficiently advanced intelligence agency has spies. With the USA agencies being the largest employers for spies on the entire Planet.
The idea of running any internet-connected software with a push-update mechanism, built and controlled by a company in a country without a strong independent rule of law, should terrify far more people than it apparently does.
This is one of those 'It's not a problem until it is a problem, and then it's a big fucking problem' scenarios.
I'm not sure what you are getting at, but judicial independence is one thing that the USA has (in some quantity) that China has none of. There is no such thing as judicial review in China, if the official class decides to ignore China's constitutional freedoms of speech, religion, and press, then there is no recourse for a court to come in and say, "no, that's not right." Vs. the USA, where the Supreme court comes in all the time and tells presidents and congress what they can't do.
The Chinese government has said multiple times that it believes rule of law is a western imperialistic concept, so it isn't like this is even a goal for them.
It's pretty obvious that this is not a problem at all, the only problem right now it's fabricating a narrative where someone is bad "because" while everyone allied with us (the west) it's not "because not".
You seem to be worried that an unfair judicial system poses a threat to everyone connected to the internet, well I got some news for you: Uber received $3.5 billion from Saudi Arabia's Public Investment Fund and they are planning now to invest $40 billion on AI. Why are US companies accepting money from a bloodthirsty dictatorship then? A dictatorship where the actual dictator, Bin Salman, among other things, detained three members of the royal family (his family) for unexplained reasons, ordered the assassination of the journalist Jamal Khashoggi and that, even more worrisome, had spies in Twitter and McKinsey that helped him track down dissidents and silence critics. McKinsey and Twitter are still actively working with the Saudis and nobody has nothing to say about it... Not surprisingly the Saudi Prince Alwaleed is the second largest investor in twitter ATM through the Kingdom Holding.
Maybe we should refocus our priorities on the issues at large, not just those issues that are beneficial to the US in their war for the global supremacy.
I understand this is how modern pro-wrestling news addresses issues, but assembling a mass of emotionally-inflammatory things doesn't buttress your point.
Specific countries have greater or lesser individual rights and adherence to law.
Why doesn't it make sense to take that into account when extending trust to specific pieces of software running on your device?
> They didn't build the Utah Data Center because of their extremely limited amount of data.
I love that people point to one of the smallest NSA data centers as if its going to prove some sort of point.
Regardless, this is exactly the kind of whataboutism that I am talking about. Every government collects all the data it can. The difference is that the NSA targets foreign governments and terror organizations. The Chinese government targets the same but also goes after their citizens, foreign citizens, foreign corporations, etc.
Sorry, but you seem a little naive. I recommend reading up on the US domestic surveillance program that the government was caught red handed engaging in.
We have almost a million people holding a TS or higher clearance, and have on average one incident a year of someone attempting to spy on a spouse or love interest, to which they get rolled up in their regular poly. So basically not a problem at all.
I never denied that the IC spies on foreign governments and terror organizations. In fact, we are really fucking good at it. You can't query or access domestic communications or those of USPER without review by the FISA courts and high level approval.
>The difference is that the NSA targets foreign governments and terror organizations. The Chinese government targets the same but also goes after their citizens, foreign citizens, foreign corporations, etc.
Thanks for the laugh, this was one of the funnier things I've read in awhile.
Depends on what you consider the "problem". As Congress sees it, the problem is two-fold... You have no control over your data. The company that does have control over your data is beholden to a foreign country not currently considered "a close ally".
> While I agree with you, I doubt banning Chinese tech will remedy this problem.
I don't mean this as a political issue, but in your comment I see one of the reasons Trump appeals to people. He promotes a mindset of "stop handwringing and just fix the damn problem."
Here we know the following:
1) DJI devices have an always-on connection
2) Chinese government is unfriendly to US and exerts strong control over Chinese companies
3) China regularly blocks US companies for whatever reason they decide.
So yeah, we can say "but banning DJI won't solve the general problem of bad companies; we shouldn't just focus on China; is a ban really fair? etc etc. Or, we can just say "screw it -- China treats US companies like shit and we're not gonna just hand over all our drone info"
I'm not sure how that would actually "fix the damn problem"? My point is that American tech companies are just as data-hungry as DJI, probably more, and Chinese tech products are more likely to let users control their devices off-line than American brands. You're right though that creating a boogeyman and attacking it while ignoring the much larger and more complicated problems is great politics (and always has been)
Here [1], CISA assesses China-made drones as a national security risk. That is a non-partisan agency. But your response is:
* American tech companies are just as data-hungry, if not more. -> irrelevant, this is about foreign cyberattacks or foreign data mining
* China produces more user-controllable devices than American brands. -> irrelevant
* Boogeyman -> Scare word
* Ignoring the much larger and complicated problem -> Deflects and says we can't do /anything/ unless we consider all angles and do /everthing/
This leads to endless handwringing, and is one of the reasons the left has support of only 50% of Americans, when it should be (in my opinion) a huge majority. Because we're endlessly caught up in the attitude of "nope, we really can't do anything in the face of obviously problematic issues." Gosh, it feels racist to ban a Chinese tech company (even though the Chinese government does actually target our cyber infrastructure). Gosh, what about the bad American companies?
And yet the US government isn't worried about a US company leaking photos of sensitive information to the US government.
The same cannot be said of the Chinese government who may be happy to get extensive drone footage of everyday US infrastructure which can be used in a future war.
The US government is right to be worried about China. Individuals, especially but not exclusively those of us who aren't US citizens, might well have more to fear from the US.
This is always an interesting read for the rest of us neither in the US nor China.
On one hand I understand we'll need to move to more insular and protective policies and basically ban foreign technology in so many places, on the other hand I don't want a gov like Ethiopia to have the choice between having no technology or being spied to the bone by all of its tech providers. The EU would be the only place with a one in a million chance to pull it off, there sure must be another way ?
> direct internet access or an account with the manufacturer to work
Unfortunately this is required by regulators in many countries. In Thailand you can't fly a drone without a license. You need to obtain the license before activating the drone and provide your information and the license number at time of activation (which is tied to drone serial number).
yes, extorting your personal data including things like high-resolution geolocation of where you are, that's a human rights violation. it strips you of your right to privacy. it's also a national security threat, and it's still a national security threat even if the company that's extorting it is domestic
dji having access to cameras also strips anyone the drone can see of their human right to privacy
I would like to see a requirement that any drone sold in (or imported to) the US (or EU) has to be flashable - without having to desolder components, or any other such nonsense. Press some buttons and load new software.
An accompanying requirement would be to document interfaces to hardware subsystems (chip spec sheets would suffice).
With drones, the potential for mischief is too great to let malware be smuggled in.
Is this a politically and technically realistic goal ? Or am I talkin' thru my hat ?
Impossible, especially for drones, because it would allow people to trivially flash firmware to drones which can bypass restrictions like no-fly zones and reporting requirements which allow the FAA or other LE to answer questions like "who was flying a drone playing chicken with a low-flying Cessna"
i agree, but we shouldn't require all firmware to be open-source and user-replaceable on only chinese devices; we should require it for everything, perhaps with narrow exceptions for things like pos terminals and certain kinds of industrial equipment
Back before the war it was possible to obtain hacked DJI ROMs from the Russians that disabled all of these connections and restrictions including no-fly zones.
Yep. That's basically what's happening. It's China success envy syndrome. And instead of competing in healthy ways, political concerns roll out crushing policies that harm both investing opportunities and the ability of consumers to choose freely.
The risk of relying on China for anything military related is too high. They have an aggressive, expansionary mindset and threaten war over Taiwan all the time.
You use protectionism like it's a bad thing, but I'm sure the folks in the military industrial complex see what's going on in Ukraine and realise it wouldn't be a bad thing if the US had some domestic small drone manufacturing capabilities.
Banning DJI could both encourage some of that manufacturing, while also stemming the flow of data to China.
We used to spend ludicrous amounts of money to fly spy planes to map hostile countries - now a hostile country has a access to a huge number of drones providing live camera data. These drones are hard to track so the government doesn't always know if they've been flown near sensitive areas. It would be negligent of the government to not try to do something about it.
> It's disheartening to witness the US embracing protectionism for high-tech
The US is embracing protectionism because we lost the manufacturing advantage. We lost the advantage because we outsourced our manufacturing to China with the pipe dream that we could keep the "higher end" of the value chain. It's as if we can magically have senior engineers without training junior ones in factories. It's as if the equally ambitious and talented Chinese fellows wouldn't want to climb up the value chain. As a result, we have lost talent. We have lost know-how. We have lost the supply chain. We have lost the intuition of how to optimize or scale manufacturing.
> It's disheartening to witness the US embracing protectionism for high-tech.
Worth noting that this is a different kind of protectionism than that sometimes practiced by developing nations to build up their local infrastructure and industry. In both cases you end up with higher domestic prices and lower quality of goods (at least at first) but at least in the case of the developing nation you do actually build up some domestic infrastructure and industry in the meantime. (Or, at least, you have the opportunity to do so.)
That's not what's happening here as there is no build-up for us to do. This is just the US government acting on behalf of US companies to shield them from competition so they can soak the domestic market for every cent without interference. There's no way any of this is going to reverse or even slow down the trend of enshittification - in fact, it's going to accelerate it.
This is so misguided it's breathtaking. Even if one buys into the supposed "harm" it's apparently trying to address, by targeting a specific corporate entity the proposed legislation won't do anything meaningful toward those ends. But it will confuse the market and hurt U.S. hobbyist consumers while being largely unenforceable anyway.
It's one of those things that's just so dumb you assume it's only congressional election year virtue signaling designed to get some headlines and then be quietly negotiated away during 'reconciliation', yet congressional processes are so dysfunctional there's always a risk it accidentally becomes law.
Be thankful that consumer/hobbyist drones haven't been banned entirely already (banning other model aircraft along with them as collateral damage).
Especially after all the footage of essentially-hobby-grade drones with familiar open-source flight controller software being turned into very effective weapons of war in Ukraine.
They could put anybody who assembles those parts into a drone into prison. Of course it would still be technically feasible to make one anyway, just as it's technically feasible to make an autosear, or for that matter a whole gun. Doesn't mean it can't be banned.
Whoa there big fella. Let's not denigrate weed growers with your broad brush trying to a make a point. Anyone that believes growing pot takes minimal effort clearly does not know what they are talking about. Maybe you can just drop some seeds in the ground somewhere, and maybe a pot plant will grow, but good weed will not be a plant of any value what so ever.
My joke was to ask who is in charge, the pot grower or the plants? You get people who don't know personal hygiene, cant cook, cant run an agenda, cant read a book, cant pay their bills in time, cant keep a cactus alive. They cant do any of those things if their life depended on it. Then all of a sudden they are busy every waking hour doing all of those things to perfection and they talk like professors. Not to mention the possible consequences. If the plants had legs, arms, a brain and access to the internet they would be doing and thinking precisely the same things. Who do you think has the pants on?
Low effort doesn’t mean zero effort. 19 states legalized home cultivation and many people are perfectly happy with what they get with minimal effort. Even in states where they can legally buy a higher quality product.
> not be a plant of any value what so ever
It’s long been a perfectly viable strategy to plant pot on public lands and then come back for harvest. That doesn’t mean people are tossing seeds randomly, but lower rewards are balanced by lower risks. Some customers are always interested in savings cash even for a terrible product.
True but some efforts are way beyond what is done in agriculture. They for example have been mutation breeding[0] since it was discovered on much larger scale than public efforts. The mutants check all possible boxes except taste. Grow faster, drinks more, more THC, resistant to heat and diseases, likes light 24/7 even while flowering, all the same size, no branches, few leafs, easier to clone.
Doesn't stop them from making marijuana illegal and putting people in prison, does it?
That said, I think enforcement would be more effective for drones. Marijuana can be effectively enjoyed in the privacy of your own home, but that's only true for a limited extent of drones. They're noisy and usually flown out in the open where annoyed neighbors can narc on you. Furthermore, just my subjective guess, I think people will be more willing to break the rules to enjoy marijuana than to enjoy drones. Marijuana is very effective at making a shit life tolerable, so people are more willing to break the law for it (and alcohol, etc).
No, but them making marijuana illegal and putting people in prison for it didn't really stop millions of people from having regular access to it.
And it'll be the same here in this context. If the government wants to make drones illegal because people are using them domestically for vigilante/terrorism purposes that'll be quite difficult.
People regularly ran clandestine grow operations that used 100kw+ of power for years and were never caught. If there's a desire for drones to commit crimes than someone will easily be able to make a clandestine drone factory.
Or 3D printers! You can print scary "ghost guns" with them. And they're mostly made in China. Although maybe Stratasys will push for that next now that they're lost their stranglehold on the market.
While Bamboo etc are one head in front of Prusa now, they are still very close in the context of printing weapons. I mean, neither are particularly suited compared to a CNC mill or lathe. And both have come quite a long way since what we had 10-15 years ago, when FDM for non-industrial users got started.
That depends entirely on your definition of "behind".
The MK4 delivers pretty much the same quality at the same speed as the P1P.
Paying 30% more to get an open-source, fully modular, fully repairable and customizable product that's made sustainably with fair wages is not a huge markup.
I'd gladly pay 30% more to get an Android phone that's fully modular, open-source, repairable, upgradable and made in the EU.
That's... quite misleading? The MK4 with input shaping is limited by extrusion speed, not the motion system.
The printers are both pretty identical in performance today. And while CoreXY has significantly more headroom in case you'd like to upgrade the current bottlenecks, that's not an option with the Bambu printers anyway.
I hope not, i'm pretty involved in the high power rocketry hobby and the materials/electronics and knowledge exist in the hobby to make something like a guided surface-to-surface rocket with a range in 10s of miles but no one does because it would instantly ruin the hobby for everyone. A friend of mine in heavy into r/c planes and is an embedded engineer so he has a bunch of autopilot stuff going on. I'm sure he can scale as high as he wants (he's also a private pilot) and fly a heavy payload to a point on a map autonomously. Again, no one does it because it would ruin the hobby for everyone.
Lots of people want to do this but the place for it is like a DARPA challenge not in the general hobby. If the authorities got wind of it then down come the regulations and no more hobby.
Yes, as a long-time fixed-wing RC hobbyist, it's generally the newbie idiots who do stupid things that threaten the entire hobby. Despite all the new rules (which I don't even bother to keep up with anymore), I still fly my planes like I always have. And just like always, I don't bother anyone and no one bothers me.
The problem for drones is easily weaponizable models exist off the shelf for people with malicious intentions and no interest in preserving the hobby. To weaponized a rocket requires more intellectual investment.
Whatever else you may think of the move ( I dislike it, because I dislike adding equivalent of riders to big bills like these ), it is surprisingly consistent with current wave of government actions ( recent placement of DeepCool on US sanctions list ). Things are happening and reading the political tea leaves makes one recognize current unmistakable trend as a the drums of war.
It's not practical, one should always assume or even pretend to be the cause of problems yourself.
Maybe it was not a good idea to kill RND in favor of greed?
Do you remember the parable of the ground breaking publication with its findings never finding a way into industry?
Musk often moaned about how hard it is to make things. It's our culture/society/economy a lot of the mechanisms are things we've made up sometimes going against reality. If we want to make something easier we would have to apply ourselves?
In 1950 the Chinese had 83% working in agriculture, the USA had 7%. (Today it is 22% and 1.6%)
You could argue they had access to abundant cheap labor but it is more practical to say we don't have access because everything is insanely expensive. Everything we do primarily benefits people who are useless to the process.
If you cant afford babies there is no need to have a family, no need to build houses for them. If one does accidentally a baby training and educating it should benefit everyone except the baby and the future?
We did all that and then boo hoo, China this China that?
But if you could control the DJI drone with some other transmitter, perhaps running OpenTX, and also replaced the video downlink, then there'd be no DJI hardware using those frequencies.
So the amendment/act [0] makes a change to "47 U.S. Code § 1601 - Determination of communications equipment or services posing national security risks" [1] to add DJI. Although the direct inclusion of an entity in US code is odd, it does follow from the 2019 NDAA (Sec. 889. Prohibition on certain telecommunications and video surveillance services or equipment. "...Huawei Technologies Company or ZTE Corporation...") which included based on that bill's text.
US is spiralling down and I feel like I am in a Truman Show with egregious presidential behaviours, dragging the world into wars which it doesn't need, banning chips, even sanctioning open source (RISC) software.
And this is further making the rest of the world enraged, china more so. Today they released Open source Deep Seek which beats GPT 4o in coding problems.
The train has left the station and the US is stuck. On the wrong platform. With no ticket.
Let me guess, the train is to a third tier Chinese city no one is interesting in going to, on tracks that the local government can't afford to pay the construction financing on, let alone future maintenance.
Ah yes, the city built yesterday is nicer than the city built 100 years ago. And the point is?
China funded all that pretty infrastructure on massive local debt that the fees are not covering. Will be interesting to see how that works out long term.
Edit: I love China. I love the chinese people. I loved Shanghai of the 2010s. I've worked with a ton of amazing chinese developers in the Bay Area that were stranded after tiananmen, and I'm sad for their tragedy but they were definitely a boon to the USA. I don't think Americans are superior to Chinese in any way. I also don't think a new building/infrastructure being nicer than old buildings/infrastructure proves anything anyone who upgraded to a new car from an old one doesn't already know.
Why build all that infrastructure when the same use case is already being met with airplanes? The USA serves it's tier 3 cities much more efficiently with a few plane routes than building an entire high speed rail would.
Again, China's high speed rail utilization is not even able to pay for it's initial build out, and is very under utilized as it goes to tier 3 locations that don't justify it. Will be interesting to see how it plays out once 'maintenance debt' (technical debt but for infrastructure) gets added to the 'build out debt'. If those tier 3 cities turn tier 1 it will look like genius investment, but I don't see it happening.
We should ban Creality and Bambu Lab too. Imagine if we also strangled consumer 3D printing for dumb reasons. You should only be allowed to print on $100k+ Stratasys for natsec reasons, of course.
Creality/Bambu killed more small companies (and Reprap) than it bothered Stratasys IMHO.
But yes...there very well may be a security concern there too. Bambu sends/receives info from the companies servers. At least once this has allowed a supposed firmware update to cause a large number of printers to start printing uncommanded. This is a major safety and security risk and it was largely ignored by the consumer community due to Bambu "making things easier".
So yeah...perhaps we should start looking into these companies...and exactly where their subsidies do/may come from.
1.) DJI offers many drones related to infrastructure mapping and maintenance, as well as agricultural tasks. From a national security perspective, it is a non-trivial threat vector for a Chinese company to not only have intimate knowledge of US infrastructure by being their drone supplier, but also by becoming a dependency of US infrastructure. In the event of a war, all of the drones could be grounded or used for nefarious purposes.
2.) When it comes to protectionism, I'm generally against it, but I have different thoughts when it comes to China. They have banned Uber, Google, YouTube, Facebook, Amazon, etc, and just make their own versions of it. Then they have absolutely no respect for international laws when it comes to IP. They don't compete economically according to the same rules as everyone else, and don't deserve to be treated the same way.
3.) I have 2 DJI drones. The fact that there is no mention of compensation in this legislature is absurd. Fortunately, I don't rely on these for my business, but imagine if you were a filmmaker, tree trimmer, real estate agent, etc, who had bought many drones for your business. Not only are you grounding the tools that they've already come to depend on, but there isn't an existing viable alternative on the market for many of these tasks.
> In the event of a war, all of the drones could be grounded or used for nefarious purposes.
That's only an issue if the drone somehow depends on an external Internet-based server, instead of just a plain radio link between the drone and its controller. The law should target that unnecessary dependency, if it exists, instead of banning even standalone drones.
Kudos to you for being able to make the first 2 points fairly despite being personally affected by this. Rare that you'd see that. Most people would start with the 3rd point and try to minimise anything that contradicts.
> imagine if you were a filmmaker, tree trimmer, real estate agent, etc, who had bought many drones for your business.
Unfortunately I suspect this group is already quite small due to the existing heavy-handed regulation of drones for anything other than recreational use. Or they're at least "under the table."
You need a drone pilot's license to legally fly a drone for anything other than recreational use. This has already decimated a lot of the most direct and interesting use cases for us.
All of these politicians who have these completely transactional relationships, I just find utterly gross. I mean, do they have any actual friends? For example, Trump completely disparaged Ted Cruz's wife and father in 2016, Cruz called Trump a "pathological liar" back then, only to do a total 180 and turn into another boot licker.
Politicians have put aside their personal beefs with Trump in response to their constituents. The republican base doesn’t want foreign wars and tax cuts, they want to kick the illegal immigrants out of the country and curtail foreign trade. Remember when Joe Biden told black voters Romney “wants to put them back in chains?” The Republican base wants their version of that guy, and that’s Trump. For Stefanik, Cruz, etc., their job is to put aside their personal preferences and get on board with what their constituents want.
I understand that, and I think it's a fair point, but there is also the issue of leadership.
E.g. there are tons of Republican "elites" who know that the whole "stop the steal" stuff and falsehoods around Trump winning in 2020 are complete, total, and utter bullshit. We know this because they've said it! My favorite example is when Liz Cheney wrote in her book that Republican Rep Mark Green said, as he was signing electoral vote objection sheets on Jan 6, "The things we do for The Orange Jesus." (In transparency, Green later denied this).
My point is its one thing to do what your constituents desire. Its another thing to propagate lies and bullshit because you think that will help you gain power, even if your constituents do love those lies and bullshit. I'd also point out that there have been a number of conservative and Republican leaders (not many, but some) who actually have some honor and have called out these lies, which has usually forced them to retire or leave the party.
I think “principled Republicans” don’t know what time it is. Trump’s only mistake was not saying “I formally concede” before spending years saying the election was stolen. That’s the new normal and has been since 2000.
And yet, with all those examples in that video of Democrats saying those things (some of which I think are valid, e.g. that Russian propaganda did help Trump get elected even if there was no collusion, though I don't agree at all that this makes Trump's presidency "illegitimate"), trying to say that is equivalent to what Trump did in 2020/2021 is plain ridiculous.
For one, despite her rhetoric, Hillary Clinton actually conceded the 2016 election. Obama actually sat down with Trump when he was president-elect in the White House. I don't recall Obama egging on an unruly mob to attack the Capitol to prevent certification of Trump's win.
And similarly, I'm having a very difficult time believing that Bush supporters would have conceded as graciously as Gore did in 2000. So spare me with the "both sides"-isms.
A concession has no legal effect. We have the tradition because it reassures the supporters of the losing candidate that the election system is trustworthy. If you say the word “concede” but then spend the next four years saying “the election was stolen” and “the president is illegitimate” you’re damaging public trust just as much as if you hadn’t conceded.
Gore, more than anyone in recent memory, deserves a special place in hell for helping turn American elections into the circus we have today. Gore exploited a loophole in Florida election law to seek hand recounts only in counties that had gone heavily in his favor. Since hand recounts identify valid votes the machine rejected, hand recounting a Gore-leaning subset of all the ballots would identify disproportionately more new Gore votes. It was blatant cheating, and on top of that the (apparently innumerate) Florida Supreme Court did things like allow the results of partially completed hand recounts to be added to certified election results. The U.S. Supreme Court struck down Gore’s shenanigans twice, once in a per curiam decision, and the other in a 7-2. (The part that everyone remembers, the 5-4 part, was only about whether to give Florida yet another chance to do a valid recount. But it was Gore’s fuckery that put the Supreme Court in the lose-lose position of having to decide that issue.)
There is nobody who hates election denial more than me. We should throw people in prison for saying that duly elected officers are illegitimate or that elections were stolen. We shouldn’t be able to litigate election results for all but the most obvious malfeasance. Seeing America today reminds me of the third world country I’m from, and it sickens me to see Americans behaving like third world people.
> If you say the word “concede” but then spend the next four years saying “the election was stolen” and “the president is illegitimate” you’re damaging public trust just as much as if you hadn’t conceded.
False dichotomy.
> Gore exploited a loophole in Florida election law to seek hand recounts only in counties that had gone heavily in his favor.
What you call "exploit[ing] a loophole," others would call "invoking a statutory procedure to exercise a right created for candidates by the legislature." Nothing stopped the Bush campaign from doing the same in counties that went heavily for them — instead, the Bush campaign lawyered up to try to stop the recounts altogether [0]. (And perhaps you've forgotten about the infamous "Brooks Brothers riot" [1] by out-of-state Bush lawyers and staffers.)
And let's not forget: Gore won the popular vote nationwide, which is irrelevant legally but of nontrivial weight morally.
Gore was a cheater, and the only reason he’s not remembered as such is because Americans are bad at math. What he did was as bad as Google exploiting tax law loopholes to make it seem like all their income is earned in Ireland. Except election law is even less of a proper place for creative lawyering than tax law.
But to circle back to my point above, this is why Trump was inevitable and necessary. Republicans must use the Gore standard for litigating elections, the Hilary Clinton standard for talking about elections they lost, and the Alvin Bragg standard for political prosecutions. If Republican presidents aren’t appointing judges who will look for constitutional standards hidden inside “penumbras,” they are committing political malpractice.
(And the “popular vote” has zero weight morally. It tells us nothing, because candidates would campaign differently if the popular vote actually mattered. If field goals counted for 7 points in football, teams would play the game differently.)
And if you need a backgrounder on Stefanik, she got elected before Trump, decided she preferred staying in DC to her hometown, sold out her previously-stated principles almost immediately when she saw a chance to gain power, and is now doing as much damage to civil liberties as Nixon and McCarthy ever managed:
She doesn't care about whether the bill does something valid or even whether it survives legal challenges, as long she can use it to score political points. It's a real shame. Congresspeople are supposed to be servants beholden to the public good, not power-hungry sycophants who can't be bothered with the details of governance.
I've never seen her. I've never heard from her locally. You can't fucking find Elise. It's all events in the past. There's never been a townhall up in this portion of her region.
I’ll contrast that with people like Jamie Raskin. I’ve met him personally (briefly, but multiple times) because he shows up at random music festivals and civic events. It’s really not hard to tell when a politician is interested in public feedback.
The complaint is typically about access. If you have a policy you'd like your rep to advance, you're stuck going through the same channels nearly everyone is: call, write a letter, etc.
If Alice Armalite or Bob Browning[0] wants something advanced, they call their guy who knows not just Stefanik, but probably a bunch of other reps socially through her.
Who's more likely to actually get the ear of a politician: you, or Alice Armalite?
To be clear, I don't think it's a good look for a politician to have personal ties that close with any lobbyist, even ones for the American Foundation for Fluffy and Adorable Kittens.
China isn't militarily supporting Russia or Ukraine. Ukraine's drone army is built from cheap Chinese drones. China is neutral. The argument that it hasn't sanctioned Russia means it is a party to the war on Russia's side is an argument of the form "if you aren't with us, you are against us." But then, you'd think the US would levy the same kind of vitriol at e.g. India.
China is led by a General Secretary of the Communist Party's central committee. Taiwan and China are recognized by the United States by international treaty as one country.
China is "attacking" the US? The US and China are in economic warfare (an economic war started by the United States under the Trump Administration). The reason for this is the US sees China's economic rise as a threat to its global position.
Neutrality in the face of gross violations of international law amounts to tacit support. And yes, I understand that you have addressed this point in your comment, but whataboutism gets us nowhere. If a country is violating human rights, they should be held accountable.
> Taiwan and China are recognized by the United States by international treaty as one country.
A treaty not worth the paper it's written on. It's clear that the United States would defend Taiwan militarily were it to come to that, so mentioning as a reason to punish China that China continues to provoke Taiwan militarily is very relevant.
> The reason for this is the US sees China's economic rise as a threat to its global position.
Ahh yes, of course, this war being entirely the US' fault.
The Guardian piece is one of many quoting US officials who were trying at the time to argue that China was involved in the conflict. The purpose of the timing of these arguments was to put pressure on German Chancellor Scholz before he made an economic interrelations trip to China (https://www.bundesregierung.de/breg-en/news/scholz-trip-to-c...). Notably that failed to gain the American officials what they wanted, as Europe continues to engage economically with China. That time and the time for that misinformation argument has since passed. We're on to other "assessments".
"Biden calls so-and-so a mean thing" is not evidence of mean thing. Using it as evidence is a logical fallacy ("argumentum ab auctoritate"). To help you understand why the US president said this, leaders call each other mean things (and even sometimes vaguely call of other's assassinations) as provocations, and in order to shape public opinion (yours).
Who decided it is a good idea to pass brands / companies specific bills?
If DJI is doing nasty things, prohibit the nasty things DJI doing in the law, not the brand. Then condemn DJI if needed. How do this law protect from any DJi competitor doing the same stuff (or even a spinoff company through a complex scheme)?
I wonder, though, could this be considered an unconstitutional bill of attainder? That's an act of a legislature declaring a person, or a group of people, guilty of some crime, and punishing them, without a trial. Article I, Section 9, iii: "No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed".
That’s been my thought since the TikTok ban as well. It was meant for people, but this for sure seems to meet the spirit of the prohibition. Does it actually violate it? We’ll have to see once the cases work their way through.
> Who decided it is a good idea to pass brands / companies specific bills?
People who want to move this country even further in the direction of Rule By Law, as opposed to Rule Of Law.
This sort of thing works out well for the already-connected and corrupt, and it's not like anyone in 2024 is deluded that we make principled decisions on anything.
I assume because the US doesn't care about the potential data collection of drones flying around as long as they have the data, they just don't like it when China has it.
God I'm glad I'm not the only one. I'm working on getting a newsletter up and running and I'm so focused on best writing practices and these guys can't even remember to define their acronyms first?
> and these guys can't even remember to define their acronyms first?
DJI is not an acronym, it's the name of a company. And DJI is the most famous drone company; asking to "define DJI", on an article for a site about drones like that one, would be like asking to "define Boeing" on an article for a site about airplanes.
Boeing is a word that looks like a proper noun and, more importantly, is a much more well-known company than DJI. Moreover, for those of us who don't know it's a company, DJI looks like an acronym, so the writer should have clarified, aka defined it.
These types of comments confuse me, because it would be faster to Google it and get an answer in 10 seconds than to post a comment and wait for a response.
Besides, from reading the article, context alone should tell you that DJI is a Chinese drone brand.
Side note on the current post: usually we downweight "bill goes through intermediate state change" stories because they tend to be follow-ups [1] rather than significant new information [2]. That is, the discussion tends to be substantively the same at each step. I've made an exception in this case because there (maybe) hasn't been too much discussion of this one so far.
741 comments
[ 2.9 ms ] story [ 359 ms ] threadAlso, I have to say that I find it very weird that random unrelated legislation can be in the same "act".
That being said, they have an insane lead in the market (rightfully earned). I don’t think US companies could ever hope to seriously compete without some form of unfair advantage, and the US has no reason to not grant it, especially given China’s tactics with EVs
The reality is that US protectionism has instead created a market where they didn't need to compete. Where they could build ever bigger cars with only Califonia even attempting to try nudge them in the direction of the rest of the world.
China showing up and eating their lunch isn't because of subsidies, it's due to gross negligence on the behalf of legacy auto.
Has everyone already forgotten the endless hit pieces on Tesla? The almost weekly espousing that "EVs will never work?". I haven't.
This was entirely self-inflicted and just like the first round of protectionism that was designed to ward off Japanese auto industry it will probably end the same way.
And I'm not sure you want to get into a discussion about China and protectionism, to say nothing of national security concerns.
Just like Boeing gets billions in tax breaks, various aids and in theory extremely profitable if they weren't so damn incompetent military contracts?
And no, it's better because it's more efficient. Over the lifetime of a plane it's purchase price is a tiny part of the total costs.
Yet Canada isn't out there banning Boeing planes or asking for 300% tariffs on them for "unfair competition".
As for the unrelated legislation, I agree. Too many things are tacked on / added on. NO ONE is reading these things in complete given that sometimes they receive the full 1k pages hours before the vote.
The other issue is the number of things funded that shouldn't be in general but that's a whole other can of worms. It's become a i'll vote for your thing if you give me this thing, for every single vote and that's toxic and gross.
If the problem is privacy, why don't we legislate privacy instead of banning apps and banning items?
My conspiracy theory would be that the US government doesn't want the citizen to have effective drones for surveillance and recon in the event of civil conflict. They want a Killswitch. (Totally crackpot but it sounds believable).
Yes exactly. If some companies are doing things that you don't like, like misusing personal information and transferring it to other countries, it is much better to enact general laws that prevent that, as the EU is doing, rather than passing laws that ban individual Chinese companies.
It would be as if rather than regulating car safety, we had a situation where lots of cars by both US and foreign automakers had massive safety problems, but rather than fixing that in general, we simply chose to ban specific Chinese car brands on supposed national security grounds while ignoring that cars made by US companies had the exact same problems.
The saddest thing about these decline of American manufacturing, and the fragility of supply chains is that all of this was predicted 30 years ago, but Wall Street and the billionaire management class did their typical shortsighted profits taking instead of sustainability, soured on by ideological capture of both parties.
I often think about how the world would be different if the people actual won the Battle of Seattle.
But this isn't simply protectionism. In terms of dollar value and jobs lost, the drone trade is minuscule. It's about military technology and spying - and this is not paranoia, I guess I can't prove it to you, but I can at least say it.
(I didn't read the bill, but based on the article alone...)
Looks like it's a tentative ban on usage, not sale nor ownership.
And currently with no "pre-ban" grandfathering-in, nor compensation for US people who'd be affected by the ban (e.g., investments in equipment, operations disrupted, migration costs).
That might help make DJI owners whole, and consistent with some of the presumed goals behind banning use of DJI. Though it's spending taxpayer money.
From my understanding / research, the approved suppliers are largely focusing on the LE, Military markets.
Current list of cleared UAS https://www.diu.mil/blue-uas-cleared-list
There is no viable competitor to DJI for consumers when it comes to the software side especially -- DJI software is miles ahead of the other drone producers (on-drone and their mobile apps).
Once these were overcome they have bounced back and are looking stronger than ever, their revenue has now risen above the pre-sanctions peak.
The year after? Poof, very small percentage of the global market.
Need a phone with a great camera? Then Huawei is much better than anything Samsung, Apple, and Google makes. Huawei market share was taking off at crazy speed before the bans on both the software and hardware side.
I guess that depends on what the goal is? If a foreign company is the market leader, banning it allows US companies to take over the domestic market without having to actually figure out how to be competitive with the market leader.
There are no US companies capable of serving this market. None can produce the product DJI did and consumers will abandon the market before they'll transition to a product that costs twice as much for half the value.
This is not like smartphones or laptops or televisions or any of that, it's not needed, it's a total luxury and hobby for 95% of buyers. They will walk before adopting a shitty US-based alternative and the market will shrivel and die.
So, this is a fine policy if hurting US consumers by destroying an entire field of hobby to thumb our noses at China is the goal. It's a broken policy of stimulating a US alternative is the goal. To accomplish the latter, subsidies and reasonable tariffs are the right approach, not bans.
This assumes end users will accept an inferior product. Without some additional pressure - subsidies or hell even nationalism - a ban alone won’t magically create on par US companies.
China has been doing this for decades so we don’t need to guess here. They seem to always bring much broader societal, financial and other support not just restrict access
Didn't they run Android, and you could root them to remove the no fly zones?
The drone would look it up through a connected cell phone using a web service like this:
https://tfr.faa.gov/tfr_map_ims/html/
I think (hope) it would be a hard sell to send different data from faa.gov to DJI drone lookups versus other brands, but on the other hand this complete brand ban is apparently politically possible.
I've got a DJI drone and I've always been worried of some OTA software update essentially making the device useless. I've got a separate iPhone 8 that I don't connect to WiFi any more that I use only to control the drone. Though honestly my fear was more that the FAA would add dumber regulations and push them on DJI to enforce, which they seem to have already done quite a bit.
Nope, it happens in the control app on your device.
> GPS is transmit-only location, it can't write no-fly zone data to a particular drone.
No one said it could.
I can't imagine what it would take for them to enforce the ban, so people would highly likely continue using and buying DJI products.
Because if you choose to do this, and it's against the law, you open yourself up to sanctions and punishment?
Canada has significant regulations around purchasing and operation of drones [0]
[0] - https://www.gazette.gc.ca/rp-pr/p1/2017/2017-07-15/html/reg2...
They don't care if a drone here or there slips thought, it's irrelevant to the point of the law.
But Canada is a long long distance for many Americans. America is pretty big and Canadian cities are sparse along the border.
(In all seriousness, nothing I've read about "DJI" even explains the basics of the issue.)
https://www.dji.com/camera-drones
It reminds me.. when someone is cheating on a partner, they are more likely to think they are being cheated on too. I have experienced this, being accused non-stop when actually they were the one cheating all along.
Just because USA likes tampering with proprietary code and using NDA’s with Silicon Valley to bug just about anything they want (because they can), that paranoia consumes them that other countries are doing the same.
During times of war, other countries absolutely do the same.
Just looks at the western reactions about 'foreign agents' bill in Georgia.
But obviously an existential crisis is not the time that many governments stand on their principles, which is why 'war powers' tend to be justified under extenuating circumstances when countries end up at war.
There is no question, if there is another major war between world powers, they will invoke the authority to compel their industries to cooperate with the effort. If they don't, they'll quickly cease to exist.
The issue is even bigger than that. It doesn't matter what the device does now, nor does it matter whether it is open or proprietary.
When it comes to national security, ask yourself "what could happen in a time of war?" Some obvious answers are:
1. If it connects to foreign service providers, those services could be shut off or changed to be malicious
2. If the device uses parts/support/updates from foreign service providers, those could be discontinued, or changed to be malicious
3. If you need the product, but don't make them locally, they may no longer be available.
etc.
It is a national security concern. Whether the cure is better than the poison only time will tell.
I think the sooner the west (read US/Canada and Europe, some say Australia/NZ) realized and wake up from their denial the better. Gone are the days of the narrative we're not going to export to you our superior and more expensive products, but now the narrative we're not going to import your superior and cheaper products, how the table are turning 180 degree. It's not uncommon to watch western Youtubers praising the good quality DJI products and at the same being critical of GoPro sub-par quality products, and they're not even reviewing the products but just honest remarks from professional users going about their filming and recording routines.
One of the largest drone manufacturers globally and backed by the Chinese government [0] and several Red Families [1]
> why is it being banned
It is very closely connected with Chinese government stakeholders, with worries around privacy and data retention [2].
There is also some lobbying by Skydio and Andruil [3][4].
They are also breaking sanctions against Russia with Russian forces using their drones [5][6] (though the Ukrainians are using them as well), as well as sanctions around Xinjiang [7].
> why should the general public care about this
They are a popular low cost drone option. It might also spark a rise in domestic drone vendors - especially in the industrial and defense space [8].
---------
Also, can we please have another source. DroneDJ is a DJI specific blog and as such is biased in favor of DJI.
Here's some reporting from AP - https://apnews.com/buyline-shopping/article/dji-drone-ban-in...
And the bill itself - https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/house-bill/2864
--------
[0] - https://ipvm.com/reports/dji-prc
[1] - https://tracxn.com/d/companies/dji/__-YU3B-qveVWiE0QN_8HPp2m...
[2] - https://info.publicintelligence.net/ICE-DJI-China.pdf
[3] - https://www.auvsi.org/policy-proposals
[4] - https://www.auvsi.org/member-organizations-list/all
[5] - https://www.nytimes.com/2023/03/21/business/russia-china-dro...
[6] - https://djirussia.ru/
[7] - https://ipvm.com/discussions/dji-xinjiang-human-rights-abuse...
[8] - https://www.ycombinator.com/rfs
> You cannot compete with China even if we annexed Mexico for cheap labor in order to manufacture high volume low profit drones.
DJI isn't making drones by hand, they have automated factories. But its only worth building an automated factory if you're selling at a massive scale. Banning DJI drones in the US lets you build a factory in the US that can eventually get costs down.
And it's also dumb to fund your opponent's war production lines.
I anticipate exactly zero automated drone factories.
What would stop someone from building their own cargo container sized drone factory that takes parts like motors, pcbs, batteries in one end and spits out finished drones on the other?
The point is that most people who will buy a $700 Chinese drone will buy a $1000 US drone if that's all they can get.
I am of the opinion that the US made a very serious mistake by opening up tariff-free trade with countries which do not have comparable labor and environmental safety laws. The Feds should have come up with reasonable estimates of what foreign manufacturing was saving by cheating that way, and charged them that amount of money to sell products in the US. Factories which wanted to avoid those tariffs could pay for, and submit to, an independent audit of their factories.
Instead we decided that it was fine for US manufacturing to compete on an "even" basis with nations who are fine with laborers losing fingers and/or getting paid slave wages, and manufacturers dumping their waste stream into a nearby river. We've paid a severe price for that misguided egalitarianism, and it's time to change course.
Was it a mistake if the goal was to get cheaper products at the expense of foreigners losing fingers?
I agree it is myopic policy for the long term, but certainly many voters are happy to push safety problems somewhere else.
And yes, over and over this was the desireded goal, I remember the election campaigns, the speeches, the white papers, the think tanks.
This has mostly been a success, looking at many such countries. The standard of living has gone up, for example China now has a "middle class" of sorts.
Environmental concerns were not on the radar at the time, not 50 years ago, not like today.
The intentions were reasonably positive and well founded. Of course, I agree reassessment is necessary, and it really should always be.
In the consumer market, if the $1000 drone has a significantly worse user experience then people just won't buy it. Before DJI the consumer drone market was much smaller; by creating a cheap, high-quality product DJI caused more people to purchase drones, growing the market. If there's no competitive alternative the market will just shrink again; consumer drones aren't a necessity.
The DJI Mini 3 Prop is currently $899, and Skydio can't manufacture something like that in the US, and sell it for that amount of money. But I bet they could make something comparable at a sale price of $1100-1300.
Allowing Communists to dump goods in our market is optional. I don't know that I support a ban on DJI products, I have a Mini 2: I like drones, but not enough to drop a couple grand on a Skydio 2 (and note that they exited the consumer market, presumably because of the aforementioned price dumping making it infeasible to compete). I would be pissed off if it was permanently grounded. But at minimum I support tariffs which are heavy enough to give domestic industry a chance to compete on an even footing.
And given the evident relationship between drone technology and national security, I could be persuaded that a full ban is in the national interest. Perhaps (this is only sort of a joke) the NSA could release a full open-source jailbreak of every DJI product, and publish an API for the cloud components which any American compute provider could then offer.
Then block their servers. Let 'em know that we'll let them back in the country when Facebook can operate in China, and not before.
the time when the US could actually decide this sort of thing at close to planet scale is long gone. if you ban those devices, there will be countless other nations (including close friends of the US) where you will be able to buy them no problem.
The cost estimates for those are quite wide, but in terms of raw materials even those low-cost prices are kind of absurd right? $20,000 for a few motors, batteries, basically a modern smartphone and 20-40 pounds of explosive? The military expects that they will get a lot cheaper, which means you need to be able to counter them at least as cheaply.
R&D costs makes up the vast majority of the cost of Western weapons systems.
I think you're 100% right here.
It may seem absurd, but something that can take out a main battle tank would be well worth $20,000. An M1A2 Abrams costs $24 million. The latest model Russian T-90 is around $4 million. A Chinese Type 99 is around $2.5 million. The asymmetry is clear.
Some of that $20,000 is making sure it works reliably under any conceivable weather conditions, after it's been stuck in a storage container at +50 C/-30C for weeks or months, etc.
On the other hand, if you're just doing reconnaissance, maybe you'd rather send a swarm of 20 $1,000 drones instead (in an attempt to overwhelm the enemy's countermeasures).
Single use drones could exist without subsidizing by the consumer industry. Ukraine is literally doing it with rubberbands. Anything else would simply lead to overdesign and basically the same problem we have now where the enemy is simply lobbing cheap artillery in volume while we simply do not have smart missiles to spare for Ukraine, nor for ourselves if we got into such a war. Lmao.
The American MIC is largely...maliciously incompetent. I work in this sector. Overdesigning, so you can slap a 500% profit margin on something with more features than ever needed. Then you lobby the generals in charge of project funding with dinners, gifts and more.
I'm under the impression that the supply-chain for Ukrainian drones basically leads to China in the same way that it does for Russia. For a "small" regional conflict, this isn't a problem to Ukraine because there's no way China could or would restrict supply of their cheap drones. But for a large-scale conflict, it would be a problem for the US to not be able to source drone motors by the 10,000's.
1. It is a bad idea to use national defense in this manner. There are more honest tools that can be used, see two.
2. Using tariff or other trade tools can blunt the impact of DJI's market position and allow for US entrants to develop. [0]
A weakness of both nat-sec bans and tariffs is that they don't actually do anything to encourage a company like Anduril to make the pro/sumer stuff needed for volume sales to develop broad acceptance, fast iteration and well founded supply chains.
0. https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2024/03/larger-lesson...
But yet they have no trouble procuring single-use (by definition) artillery shells that cost an order of magnitude more and require even more production volume?
DJI drones are being used in significantly lower quantities as "base stations" and long-range reconnaissance applications, with the occasional bomb-dropping side run.
FPV drones are being used in much, much, much higher quantity than DJI drones, owing to their massively lower cost to produce due to ... the simpler and mostly orthogonal supply chain!
Financing a consumer/enterprise camera drone production capability with an end goal of enabling the construction of large quantities of one-way FPV drones, as the parent post to mine suggested, would not be a good strategy, IMO.
Having domestic consumer/enterprise camera drone production capability at all is of course a good idea, but the quantity needed in war fighting is significantly lower, at least with the current tools and techniques seen in Ukraine.
When the Western drone startups fail at that they will turn to AI, agriculture, LIDAR/mapping etc. But all the money is in the consumer/prosumer market where DJI is earning billions every year which also makes them able to outspend competitors in the professional drone markets.
How is banning DJI drones in the US going to affect how they're being used in the war in Ukraine?
Or do you mean that banning them in the US will somehow stop them from being used against the US in the future?
It will not.
> Or do you mean that banning them in the US will somehow stop them from being used against the US in the future?
No.
This is about planning for the future. In the event of a war the US wants a large existing base of domestic drone manufacturers. Today, that just does not exist at scale as most are made in China. This is similar to efforts to re-shore chip manufacturing.
I don't think the US military generally uses off-the-shelf consumer products like the Ukraine military does, so does this actually affect them? They would be getting drones built to order from a military contractor anyway, so I don't think it really matters what the leading consumer manufacturer of drones is to the US military from that perspective.
Chip manufacturing seems like a slightly different situation in that if another country restricted US access to chips it would affect the entire US economy, so I think it has security implications in a broader sense where security is interpreted to include the stability of the US economy as a whole, rather than military supply specifically.
Yes, because if you have no drone manufacturing in your country, you can't just spin on a dime and suddenly have military-grade drone manufacturing. Technology is a lot less about knowing what the atomic weight of cesium is and a lot more about employee A knowing that B knows how to solve instability problems and their contact at company C knows what to do when the blades spin apart. You can't build the massive networks of those relationship by just passing a law today and expecting to have a best-of-class industry tomorrow, no matter how much money you throw at it.
They rather famously switched to an Xbox controller for their rolling drones, and for their submarine controls, because they just work better. For quite a while, military-issued camelbaks still had bright blue caps because the contract to custom build the systems hadn't been settled yet. There are in fact plenty of electronics that they use that are not purpose built, that are bought more or less off the shelf.
All of that said, I still agree that the US military is unlikely to allow off-the-shelf drones at this time. Parts availability is the driver there. Its better to pay a contractor $3k a pop to buy a bunch of a DJI Mavics, spray paint them olive drab, and issue them to each platoon than it is to give every platoon $3k and say "go buy a drone", because then you can buy 6000 of the same replacement rotor or whatever.
Like oceangate?
If you don’t need accurate force-feedback, just highly reliable transmission of inputs, why wouldn’t you use the final iteration of a controller that millions of players have spent billions of hours using and abusing?
It’s not even a Bluetooth controller, it’s just standard USB. The folks who were shitting on that design decision (and not the carbon fiber hull decision), have no sense of what’s common, or even possible, on a microcontroller device.
FWIW, we might be at peak drone for warfare anyway. At least vehicle based countermeasures are pretty obvious and will be put in place soon, although that won't be cheap either.
It's disheartening to witness the US embracing protectionism for high-tech. If the United States does this, it might as well join the European Union's decadence in killing tech startups by stifling the competitiveness of their market...
Only for targeted attacks. The Russian way of prosecuting war is still a shower of shells, rockets, and a mob with guns. Drones are retail, Russians do wholesale.
Non-FPV drone flyers can drop 40mm grenades from 100ft and hit a CEP of like a couple feet, and that's with literally four drops of practice and unsophisticated munitions. Untrained RC plane pilots can NOT do that.
That said, I don't think this law has anything to do with war, just simple economic protectionism driven by Skydio and other US drone lobbyists. Getting rid of DJI's excellent $7,000 enterprise drones lets Skydio sell their $15,000 + cloud-subscription enterprise drones instead.
As others point out, DJI can't control what buyers do (a good default).
Perhaps it would be more accurate to say DJI won't manufacture drones for offensive war use. This sharply limits their usefulness to the US Military.
Either way, using US Mil as an excuse doesn't make sense for a ban. They won't be buying gear they have reason to mistrust.
As ever, reasons for the ban seem to be evidence-free speculation. Articles that omit this key part of the story aren't serving their readers.
See: chipmakers, telecom tech, aerospace tech, etc.
Is it any different than China wanting data access from U.S companies that attempted to open their business there? I'm not in favor of this ban. I think they should've at least forced DJI to keep the data local before going for an outright ban.
But yes it's obviously better for the US to at least keep the data from going overseas. But that's not really what we've been seeing with this potential ban and tik Tok. It's just outright banning stuff under the same "national security" boogeyman. Again, yes China does the exact same thing but I don't think we want to imitate China out of all nations. The cold war wasn't won by imitating the Soviet Union.
I can still buy a DJI drone here in Europe. What stifling are you referring to?
This is the "everyone in the US is a temporarily embarrassed millionaire" of consumer rights. Everyone in the US is a temporarily embarrassed capitalist overlord.
"Rich" people don't want socialized healthcare because of perceived or real disadvantages of that system. Not because "the poors might get it".
Also the "temporarily embarrassed millionaire" is another strawman, used by those who dislike capitalism. People can and do support a variety of causes and policies without they themselves benefitting from them.
That's fair, I should have said "because the poors might benefit". Rich people don't like socialized healthcare because they, by definition, will pay for people who can't afford it.
The problem is when people who will benefit from this identify with people who will lose from it.
> People can and do support a variety of causes and policies without they themselves benefitting from them.
They do, but here we're talking about the opposite: People being against policies they benefit from, because they identify with the group that will not.
P.S. I liked your comment, it was a reasoned reply that furthers the debate, thank you.
The two commonly held arguments against socialized healthcare in America are: First, a distrust that the government will create a system that is good and a belief that quality will decrease under such a system, and;
Second, that such a system would be funded by a large tax increase and that Americans are in general hard to get excited about tax increases. The financial concern is in the taking, not in the getting.
I'm afraid your experiences are not universal.
There is a very strong streak of this in the US, significantly (though probably not wholly) traceable to the Calvinist roots of the Puritans who were a profound influence on the early culture of the country. When you believe that people's position on Earth is due to their level of deserving (Just World Fallacy), it's very easy to extend that to "and therefore we shouldn't try to help poor people; they're just being punished for being bad people."
There are genuinely many people who wholeheartedly believe that the poor deserve to be poor, and that helping them is bad. Some of them aren't even that well off themselves, but have bought into an ideology that's detrimental to them.
If you haven't encountered these people, then count yourself lucky, but don't try to deny their existence or assume your own experiences are universal.
You can't deny the politics of retribution exists, because politicians only give oblique references to it; voters certainly believe it, hence one voter who complained about Covid shutdowns thusly: "He's not hurting the people he needs to be"
It's an unsavory thought, but the US has a significant amount of people employed in the business of denying healthcare to other people, which amounts to hundreds of thousands of jobs.
Any politician attempting to fix this would be committing political suicide.
Are you talking about me, personally, or Americans in general? I suppose it doesn't really matter - you'd be wrong in either case. The median person in the poorest US state is richer than the median person in the UK, for example.
Most Americans grumble about paying for healthcare, and we are getting ripped off, but it's also very rare for someone to actually die because they can't afford it. Anyone in the top, say, 80% of American society has some form of employer-subsidized insurance.
These words are doing some very heavy lifting.
This is due to the garbage GDP numbers. Based on these, the quality of life in the Mississippi is better than in Japan. Not a single chance. The US numbers are highly inflated by the financial sector and real estate. It'll take a financial crisis and dethroning of US dollar to show how truly poor these places are.
Source? Are you adjusting for cost of living, per capita, and using the median?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(nomi...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(PPP)...
> Are you adjusting for cost of living, per capita, and using the median?
Yes, yes, and no (irrelevant because it barely shifts the result)
Come on, this is Econ 101 and basic logic.
> Come on, this is Econ 101 and basic logic.
You griping about luxury goods on principle isn't "Econ 101" or "basic logic".
You can look at basically any material metric you like (cars owned, house size, etc.) and Americans come out ahead. Nominal GDP numbers are kind of nonsense, but they're directionally the same nonsense everywhere, so they actually work OK as an international comparison.
Rate of personal bankruptcies? Homeownership rate? Median household net wealth?
The amount of cars Americans have on absurd loans is entirely irrelevant to their personal wealth or lack thereof.
The allocation of debt is essentially irrelevant - there are materially more, bigger, better cars per capita in the USA. Whether those cars get repo'd and transferred to richer Americans is irrelevant - you can't fake the material presence of more stuff.
Then you're comparing countries with better distributed quality of life based on GDP or the presence of billionaires and unicorns, as if between you, Zuck, and Musk you have an average wealth of $500B. There are much poorer GDP-wise countries where people live better and are happier than the US :)
The median American has all of these things better than the median European, except maybe healthcare. That's tough to compare. Some countries like the UK clearly have worse healthcare than the US.
Most of the top colleges are American. American homes tend to be much larger and nice than European homes.
> Then you're comparing countries with better distributed quality of life based on GDP
The distribution is really not that skewed. In most states, median income is within 40% of mean income.
Whether you compare median or mean, Americans reliably come out ahead, except for a few small Euro countries (mostly tax havens for American companies).
No. Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_wealth_pe...
By median, the US is on par with Italy. If you adjust for property prices (cheaper in Italy), then it's definitively lower.
How about the median Western European (including nordic)?
>Most of the top colleges are American.
Yes, because that's where the money and companies are. Those concern a miniscule minority of the population - with most either not having access to education, or only through huge personal debt. And even there, take away the majority Europeans, Asians, Indians, etc doing the research in these (after having been educated in their local countries), and it would be a wasteland.
>Some countries like the UK clearly have worse healthcare than the US
The UK had better healthcare than the US for the average person, it only fell behind because of opening itself up too much because of immigration (without sufficient funding increases) and also because of following US-like neoliberal policies in the past 20 years or so that hurt the NHS.
>Whether you compare median or mean, Americans reliably come out ahead, except for a few small Euro countries (mostly tax havens for American companies).
Not exactly.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_wealth_pe...
US ranks 3 by mean but 15 by median. It's ahead of most European by mean but by median most West European are ahead. And this doesn't adjust for property prices.
Yep! And the European countries behind include like ex-soviet bloc countries and such (basically starting from very low in 1989-1991). And as you not, the cost differences (not accounted in the table) push European countries even further than this ranking.
Besides mean vs median, I'd point also quality of life factors not measured in dollars or euros.
On mobile every page load ends up with me spending the first minute or so on page dealing with the half-screen "don't sell my info" cookie dance, followed with the ad-block pop-ups.
It usually isn't the law's job to dictate an implementation.
> shitty implementers ended up making the browsing experience horrible with intrusive pop-ups and geo blocking.
How is the law that doesn't even talk about browsers or cookies responsible for this?
But it's also driven some pretty interesting projects, so I'd probably call it a wash or perhaps a slight positive, even if I were to ignore the major benefits as a consumer
To be fair to them, i think it was sarcasm.
Like, the pendulum swung WAY too far in the other direction.
None of which are required by GDPR. In fact, those obtrusive "consent" forms are usually violations of GDPR.
The laws are great because every cookie consent form is essentially saying, "we as a company want you to accept a cookie that is unnecessary."
If you don't install unnecessary cookies, you don't need to have a consent form.
2. It clearly explains which cookies it uses in the linked policy page
3. It has an opt-out that is as easy as the opt-in (as required by law)
As is explicitly required by law
There’s a different issue here: lawyers and companies are often concerned that what they deem necessary will be deemed unnecessary when challenged. So, they require cookie consent preemptively to avoid liability in case they get it wrong.
It surfaces which websites use stronger tactics to track you, and which allow consumer friendly opt-outs. There are even many websites that don’t need the notices as they don’t use cookies for tracking a natural person (their cookies are not associated with personally identifiable information).
So we can choose what we use because we are informed.
The problem is I didn't see a single web site that I visited where this was apparent. It was a mess of opt-in pop-ups and settings and whatnot that completely overwhelmed me with actionable things I had to do before I could interact with a site, and often many companies clearly just said F it and blocked anyone from Europe.
Some websites have become region-locked, but I found that it's mostly those who cater to American audiences anyways. Perhaps if you travelled to Europe, this was more of a problem for you because you wanted to read the local news back home. For us, back home is here, so local American websites region-locking us out isn't a big inconvenience. They probably only do this if European audiences don't make up much of their readership anyways — they wouldn't want to lose significant ad revenue.
Imagine if companies didn't collect copious amounts of user data and didn't try to use every trick in the book and all known dark patterns to make you give up that data.
"We care about privacy by selling your data to 2765 'partners' and are blaming GDPR for this"
So to me this seems more like the tech-companies and websites being annoying at implementing an easy solution, in order to rebel against the laws and make people angry at it for the inconvenience, then the law itself being bad.
(https://measuredcollective.com/why-your-cookie-banner-is-pro...)
IMO, often innovation happens because it is motivated to work around rules and regulations. So in many cases regulation and rules are what drives innovation. People want to hack the system and thus have to innovate. A completely hacked and open system doesn't really inspire new ideas, because the old ones just work fine already.
I'm not sure about that - I really like my lifestyle which would be nearly impossible to attain in Europe, but is very attainable for Americans.
I don't see how you're materially better off because you're forced to use foreign companies (Google, Facebook, etc.) instead of having your own.
And the inclusion of so many cryptocurrency "unicorns" in that list is also quite telling.
Entity formation time; time and capital required to hire the first N employees; number, cost and time of licensing required before first sale can be made. Each are higher in Europe. Combine that with the multiple languages and regulators which inhibits scale and you get the present situation.
Which, I will note, is fine. It’s optimised for stability, not wealth. On the other hand, it naturally means having to choose between American and Chinese tech giants.
Which Europe? All of those can be done online with minimal effort or upfront investment in many EU countries. Do you mean Belarus?
> Combine that with the multiple languages and regulators which inhibits scale and you get the present situation.
This is true, because the EU is composed of 20+ different countries, each with different languages, cultures, histories, priorities. It's impossible to remove that boundary.
Each of them can be done online in most countries. All, very few. I think only Estonia comes to mind. (At least one form in that process requires visiting a notary in most of Western Europe.)
The cost of terminating an employee is also a unique risk that European firms have to capitalise for which American start-ups do not. Again, I understand why one would choose this stability. But it comes with a cost.
> It's impossible to remove that boundary
It's absolutely possible by mandating a lingua franca. But it would cause irreparable damage to those cultures, which is why the EU--sensibly, in my opinoin--has chosen to preserve them. But this is a choice and it comes with costs.
[1] A dialect is a language without a flag or a float.
Totally hearsay from me.
If I build something in California, to California's laws, and it becomes a success, I can immediately sell it across the entire rest of the US, and I can expand across the US, using the same employment contracts as in california, same lawyers as in california, etc.
Sure, later on I can save money by making the Delaware version of my product with more cancerous chemicals, or have stricter NDAs in my Florida contracts.
But if I start with California regulations, I can expand to the entire US with a small team of employees.
There's nothing like that in Europe. If my product works in Germany, I'll need a french, spanish, italian translation to sell it in these countries. I can't just hire people from these countries either — they've got different holidays, different work hours, different unions I'll have to deal with. Different tax codes and agencies. And often these are conflicting with one another.
In the US, I need one or two support shifts in one or two languages. In the EU I need 27. In the US, I need one version of the product, with one plug. In the EU, unless I'm okay with 10A and a plastic chassis, I need a dozen different versions.
And even if the product can be used universally, European culture is significantly more diverse than US culture.
Is a phone call at 7am or 8pm more appropriate? Depends on whether you're in Germany or Spain. When a job applicant includes a photo of themselves and lists their parents' degrees and jobs on their own CV, is that appropriate or not? In Germany, that's often expected, in many other regions, a huge no-go.
To be successful in the US, I need to build one company. To be successful in the EU, I need to build a multinational corporation with 27 local branches.
So if you're spending the same effort anyway, expanding to the US with 300 million people is much more profitable than expanding to Germany with 80 million people, or the Netherlands with 20 million people.
Which is why Spotify became available in Sweden, the US, and the rest of the EU in that order.
Which is verifiably false.
Spotify launched in 2006, and expanded into the US in 2011. You truly believe that it never expanded in the EU in the intervening 5 years? How then did it launch in the UK in 2009? Or how did it have a million paying customers in the EU by the time they launched in the US?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spotify#Geographic_availabilit...
Spotify launched in Sweden, Finland, France, Norway, Spain, followed by the United Kingdom and the Netherlands.
After the US expansion, Spotify finally expanded to Andorra, Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Monaco, Poland, Portugal, Slovakia and Switzerland
That means Spotify launched for 222 million europeans, expanded to 300 million US-americans, before becoming available for the remaining 281 europeans.
You'd never see a US company launching e.g. only for Washington, Oregon, California and Nevada, expanding to China, and only afterwards become available in the remaining states.
In 2012, after their "expansion" in the US they had five times as many paying users outside the US as in the US.
All that matters is the original comment: "Which is why Spotify became available in Sweden, the US, and the rest of the EU in that order."
Where reality is Spotify became available in 7 countries before attempting to expand in the US.
Which is, funnily, what you literally wrote in your edit:
> That means Spotify launched for 222 million europeans, expanded to 300 million US-americans, before becoming available for the remaining 281 europeans.
Edit Where by "expanded to the US" is literally "failed to capture any significant market for a long time"
Sure, but they still decided to expand to the US, despite a worse outlook, before expanding to the remaining EU countries. As said, you'd never see a US company do that.
I don't think anyone disagrees about that.
In practice, the way California tech startups work is
Steps #5-6 aren't limited to a particular state. At that point, you have buckets of money anyway, so you contort your company structure and product into a configuration that is legal in as many jurisdictions as possible, including internationally.But the social differences of the two markets remain.
It wouldn’t be that hard to find people to translate your app and provide support in the major languages in most large European cities.
They keep posting graphs of market capitalisation claiming that Europe must be failing because doesn't have speculative public trading stocks. There's also the top-list theme, making list of top-10 companies by market cap, claiming that if your country doesn't have monopolistic speculative giant public companies you must be failing.
It's very annoying because its very repetitive, I guess they are trying the Goebbles' propaganda technique of keep repeating something until people believe in it.
Someone really really wants to turn the European economy into this short term high growth long term who cares casino that the US has become.
Let's have those countries as our role model then? /s
Are you aware that you can use the developer tools in your browser to set the price of the stock or your bank account balance to anything you like? You don't have to crumble your infrastructure, run from the mentally ill homeless people or bankrupt sick people to see those numbers.
If you insist on extra steps, you can sell a stock to your friend at ridiculous price and say that that this company is now bigger than the worlds' economy combined.
Apart from longevity[1], everything else is subjective so do you have any evidence? From what I see based on a quick search, happiness level seems same in US/Canada vs Germany/France. eg. Rankings by this[2] measure: Canada(15), USA(23), Germany(24), France(27). Or scores by this[3] measure: Canada (6.9), USA(6.7), Germany(6.7), France(6.6)
[1] Even longevity is full of caveats and nuances. When you look at life expectancy by ethnicity, a given ethnicity has similar life expectancy across different advanced countries (eg. Japanese-Americans vs Japanese in Japan). It doesn't even seem to be correlated by income in the US, because latinos have a higher life expectancy than whites[4] even though later group is richer than the former.
[2] https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/happiest-...
[3] https://www.visualcapitalist.com/a-map-of-global-happiness-b...
[4] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9256789/
The highest HDI in the world is possessed by dozens of counties in the US. The lowest in the US is on par with... Poland.
No? This is exactly the opposite of why companies exist, they are specifically there to increase the stock price via development of their products. That we get better happiness via rising wealth standards is just a coincidence, albeit a very useful and historically true coincidence. And even then, companies can last quite a while trudging along but it will stop at some point if new innovation is not kept up in the form of new companies (as older companies are usually at capacity for hiring). Look at the youth unemployment rate in many European countries compared to the US.
> Are you aware that you can use the developer tools in your browser to set the price of the stock or your bank account balance to anything you like? You don't have to crumble your infrastructure, run from the mentally ill homeless people or bankrupt sick people to see those numbers.
Changing a measure does not change the underlying thing it's measuring, no more than I can time travel by changing a clock. Obviously people are talking about what those numbers represent, not the numbers themselves. GDP is a useful enough concept as I mentioned above, one that correlates well to overall citizen wealth. Europeans are generally quite a bit poorer than Americans, even with the addition of the value of free (or rather, "free") healthcare. Tech employees are even more so advantaged, as their health insurance is excellent while they make multiples of their European counterparts. It is not "libertarian" to acknowledge this fact, and it's one of the main reasons you see many European tech people moving to the US and Silicon Valley.
I wouldn't obsess too much with the GDP too, its not as good as a proxy to the important stuff as people are trying to make it. An appendicitis surgery generates much more economic activity in USA than in Europe and Americans don't end with better appendixes.
GDP is a good measure in general, because again, economic activity is correlated with higher outcomes. See China now versus 100 years ago.
Besides, that’s why americans have cars to insulate them from the unwashed masses
Revolut
GoCardless
Shift
Vinted
…
>Revolut
Those have 1% of the revenue compared to the top American tech companies (individual, not combined). The rest are private and I suspect have even less revenue. If those are the best examples of "tech successes" you can think of, you're proving the parent commenter's point.
Europe has plenty of very successful, influential, and tech heavy organizations. ARM and AirBus come immediately to mind. Car manufacturers such as VW or BMW. Software companies such as SAP. Some of the largest banks and fossil fuel companies in the world.
Wether if it's from Samsung, Apple, Google, Microsoft, NVIDIA or AMD. And lately, Intel too.
ASML
Samsung and Intel ( + all others) buy their fabs at ASML.
Cars: my preference is still German ( and Toyota). Tesla is really low build quality and it's claims for FSD ( as it's "technological innovation") is a joke. But, Waymo is ahead though.
Planes: Well, Airbus, duh.
In the context of this conversation also, when we say "tech" we're usually talking about much more than just hardware production (especially software). A huge chunk of the value-add is from the software and other use cases that the tech company adds to the hardware. But even just looking at hardware, a ton of that hardware is designed in the US and just sent out for manufacturing. The physical manufacturing is just a piece of the whole.
But even all that aside, none of those major manufacturers seem to be in Europe, so I don't see how even zooming in on the hardware makes a point about Europe not having barriers and/or friction.
As an aside, to be clear, I'm not making any value judgments here by saying just because things are done somewhere means that is better. There's a lot more to the equation than just that, which is easily illustrated with a hypothetical example. If you enslaved a population you could get a lot of business by doing things cheaply, but it obviously wouldn't be a "better" place just because it's the easiest/cheapest place to get business is done.
It's where the money is there in large numbers for the bang per buck.
Additionally: Natural resources ( middle east) or continents that are not land locked with bad actors ( almost everywhere outside of the US / Canada).
Additionally, 1 language/culture to rule them all has an incredible benefit compared to Europe.
Just my POV fyi. Coming from Belgium, 10 million people and 3 official languages. An European tax number is relatively new too.
Say all you want about "speculative public trading stocks", but I trust public markets' pricing more than private markets[1] or the government[2].
[1] https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2024-02-26/what-h...
[2] https://www.economist.com/finance-and-economics/2023/05/25/c...
According to western reports, China is at least 15 years ahead of US in Nuclear for example: https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/us-many-15-years-beh...
Or public infrastructure, or transportation, or electric cars etc.
US is stil ahead in some stuff but the list is getting smaller as the market caps getting bigger and people "richer".
I'm not claiming it is, just that it's far more objective and far less fudgeable than the alternatives.
>According to western reports, China is at least 15 years ahead of US in Nuclear for example: https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/us-many-15-years-beh...
>Or public infrastructure, or transportation, or electric cars etc.
Arguably all of those is more due to government intervention than the companies themselves. Nuclear is impossible to build in the US due to overburdensome regulations, infrastructure/transportation is impossible to build due to NIMBY-friendly planning rules, electric cars are massively subsidized by the Chinese government.
It is the same with your comment, saying that it's only libertarians or those who want low regulation is a strawman, it depends on exactly which type of regulation. China can achieve some things with its big government ways, but it can't achieve everything. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/YIMBY_movement
Chinese regulation is neither too high nor too low. It would be impossible to build a nuclear plant if the government didn't firmly back it, otherwise there are no barriers that it can't ignore.
It's not objective in the least. Stock markets are pure speculation.
It's the European way to roll, the Brits are trying to be a bit more like the Americans but its worlds apart. The American spirit is something else, I wish we had it in Europe but maybe its not compatible at all with the European way of life. So, if you feel adventurous, motivated and ambitious you go to USA to make it big.
Also, it's funny that you mention Goebels. It's ironic even when you repeat the same tropes about the US and how it's supposedly beholden to the capital markets and speculators.
Europe has its giants. Europe usually does not attack its giants. That's why you get megacorps like Maersk or Airbus or Volkswagen. The entire point is that it only attacks other giants (ie, not homegrown giants), hence the focus on legislation that mostly affects them but leaves European corporations mostly unscathed. Or why green legislation curiously doesn't affect German coal extraction (what a coincidence!) that much. Or all the other double standards Europe and some Europeans love so much.
The delusion here is this weird narrative of good, noble Europeans who are somehow only guilty of not being greedy.
Airbus keeps making good quality planes that don't fall from the skies, selling those then flying around. It's alright, I don't know why the government should attack Airbus but maybe the US government should have kept Boeing in check.
Europeans have their ways and Americans have theirs. Let's keep it like that and not put all the eggs in the same basket, as it appears that Chinese came up with another hugely successful economy model.
The only difference is that we hear a lot more about American success and failures as they are sadly utterly dominant in media presence way beyond their own borders. And Europe seems much more likely to just keep its skeletons hidden in its closet, and tries to talk about them as little as possible.
(For example,see how the German regulators dealt with Wireguard by going after the journalists that sounded the alarm for years. Or how Europeans love to discuss American issues like racism while ignoring how much worse the issue can be in their own backyard. Or the commenters here that recoil at any criticism of the EU and invent some conspiracy where said criticism obviously comes from. I never see any American accuse Europeans of being behind sentiment that is critical of the US.)
Americans love to be very loud about their issues, for better or for worse.
Now that the emperor is fully naked; colonialism never ceased to exist, it just took a different form. The next decade is going to be very interesting, and not in a good way.
It's so much that it literally pushes young people to have a non-risk taking mindset. I have a friend who has some knife sharpening and tooling skills and she's been figuring how to do something with this (some kind of a business). I suggested why not get a garage and get the machinery you want and get started. She listed down all the regulations and how even thinking about it is not allowed.
Starting a business/startups is hard. The EU just adds 10-20 more hurdles to cross to get even with the US startup ecosystem. At least that's been my observation in the few weeks.
Apparently Spaniards like it this way, they live long healthy lives in the system they set up for themselves.
In Europe it just takes a lot more capital investment to get started. You can't do it as a side-gig with a hope/dream working nights and weekends like you can in the US. The process to MVP is just way more complicated because there's a ton of compliance/legal stuff that has to be there at launch. The actual product might take 60 hours of work to build, but then there's another 200 hours of compliance to do which doesn't add any product value at all. You also typically have to hire an expert to help at least consult, because trying to do it all yourself just requires you to have a ton of expertise that no single person ever has. Hiring is also a mixed bag. Market salaries in Europe are a lot less which helps, but firing a bad fit is also way harder so there's big risk. You also can't offer stock-based comp as much in Europe as you can in the US, which all serves to make it harder to get launched.
Once you reach a certain scale, Europe can be just as friendly or more-so than the US, but that scale acts as a great filter for people that don't already have the deep pockets to fund things on their own to get to that point, and most investors won't take that kind of risk without validating product-market fit. The European culture of more longevity also makes it easier in some ways to keep a young company stable because people aren't constantly leaving and you aren't constantly in bidding wars for talent. Overall it's just a mixed bag, but that early filter is why you don't see as many working-class people doing a tech startup in Europe and making it big. On the flip side, when companies make it through that filter, they tend to be a lot healthier and more viable, and quality tends to be higher. Again these are generalities.
This can happen much quicker and easier than you think. Some Chinese delusional leader is going to attack Taiwan and voila, all the import from China will immediately stop at that exact moment.
Actual armed conflict? Total annihilation. Neither side wants this. Its why China will not invade Taiwan, and why the US won't put its boot on the neck of the China.
I've been looking at other commercial-esque options (mainly photogrammetry) and came across Sony's"bring your own DSLR" drone.
https://pro.sony/ue_US/products/professional-drones/ars-s1
Is it? I suspect China has zero regrets in embracing protectionism for social media. The American drone consumer will get squeezed for a few years, until the US develops decent home-grown suppliers in a strategic industry. Hard to think of a better limited use of protectionism tbh.
North America has the benefit of two oceans for national defense, but the risk associated with that is one of insularity and stagnation. Ask an indigenous person (if you can find one) how well being a couple hundred years behind European technological development worked out once hostile colonists are on your shores.
> a couple hundred years behind
Even before muskets started becoming common, European professional infantry had largely abandoned shields. Mass produced plate armor provided sufficient protection from arrows, and two-handed pikes were better than a pike and a shield.
On the other hand, bows became more effective again as muskets improved. When a musket could penetrate any reasonable armor, personal protection became less important.
But the fact that goofus fails at doing X doesn't make doing X always the wrong choice.
Lumber prices rose because at the start of the pandemic, the industry predicted a housing crash and took drastic steps to downsize and then the exact opposite happened. And we were left with a garden-variety supply vs demand situation.
If it was just protectionism, prices in Canada would not have had sharply increased lumber prices at the exact same time: https://www.cbc.ca/news/business/lumber-prices-covid-19-cost...
- On the one hand, as SE Asia is intimately familiar with, it can create space to create globally competitive industries.
- On the other hand, it can also remove the incentive for local industries to invest and become technically competitive.
IMHO, what I'd like to see would be a stricter link between protection measures and R&D investment.
If an industry is protected, then it is required to prove it's improving itself + limit returns to shareholders.
E.g. steadily increasing CAFE fuel efficiency standards, requirements to demonstrate decreasing costs of production (lumber and/or steel), etc.
Too often, protection measures are implemented, the excess benefits are skimmed and go directly to shareholders, and the company doesn't increase its global competitiveness (e.g. US Steel).
Drones are not yet an "essential" piece of technology for the country as a whole. We're currently at "cutting ourselves off at the toe" territory... in a few years we'd be even more dependent and legislation like this would be catastrophic. Better now than in the 2026.
Presumably this is the actual answer—they're just better at manufacturing than we are at this point. By a large margin, as well. There is no shortcut to reversing decades and decades of shipping entire supply chains overseas at greatly reduced cost. We're just going to get substandard products at a greater cost to both the taxpayer (subsidy option) and the consumer (market option).
> How could the US build out a competitive drone industry with chinese manufacturers able to cut price because the Chinese government will cover the gap?
You swallow your losses until you automate your way out of a labor disadvantage or give up. Frankly the only reason this is getting attention is because it's seen as a military asset. It's basically burning cash to make the pentagon feel better about itself and generate a few hundred jobs at great cost to the taxpayer and pretending this is making some effort towards something valuable.
The U.S., Europe, and Japan need to create and enhance a drone industrial base before China invades Taiwan. By the time it has invaded, creating the industrial base will be too late.
Also, China has created DJI through government-sponsored industrial policy, not via open markets.
So like Boeing, Intel, Lockheed-Martin, GE, IBM, etc..
That's nothing new, just 50-100 years behind the west...
While DJI here might create good hardware, their internet and account requirement makes it uncontrollable by the consumer, so I do understand that some consumers or, the possible more security aware US, will not trust it. But for the same reason China and other countries might not trust Apple or similar.
Trust is something that needs to be earned and which has to go both ways, if a company doesn't trust their users, and prevents people using their bought products however they like, then why should their users trust the company and let their uncontrollable software record their private lives and possible report back to them?
Look at the difference between iRobot and Chinese robot vacuums on Amazon - the difference is night and day.
I was just talking about my experience with DJI. Where you buy a product, can use it for a bit, and then it stops working, because you haven't connected it to the internet or created an account.
It is often the 'market leaders' that are so afraid to loose customers and their market position to implement customer hostile processes into their products.
This whataboutism ignores one very important point.
When you connect a device to an American company they might do things that we consider privacy violations, while still staying generally within the bounds of the law. We like to joke about data going to the NSA or something, but in the extremely limited cases where it does protections exist with oversight.
Contrast this to Chinese companies where by law every company is part-owned by the government itself. The Ministry of State Security literally has employees who show up to these companies every day like normal workers, but their job is to find and exploit intelligence on foreign individuals and businesses.
Reverse whataboutism is still whataboutism.
For example this predicate
> while still staying generally within the bounds of the law.
Completely ignores the fact that US companies have been found lying and deceiving to circumvent the barriers posed by the law.
But not only US companies, remember the diesel gate?
This other predicate
> (In China) by law every company is part-owned by the government itself
It's completely false, while this one
> The Ministry of State Security literally has employees who show up to these companies every day like normal workers
It's pure intellectual dishonesty . Every sufficiently advanced intelligence agency has spies. With the USA agencies being the largest employers for spies on the entire Planet.
This is one of those 'It's not a problem until it is a problem, and then it's a big fucking problem' scenarios.
I'd really like you to try and define this term in a way that doesn't exclude the US
The Chinese government has said multiple times that it believes rule of law is a western imperialistic concept, so it isn't like this is even a goal for them.
You seem to be worried that an unfair judicial system poses a threat to everyone connected to the internet, well I got some news for you: Uber received $3.5 billion from Saudi Arabia's Public Investment Fund and they are planning now to invest $40 billion on AI. Why are US companies accepting money from a bloodthirsty dictatorship then? A dictatorship where the actual dictator, Bin Salman, among other things, detained three members of the royal family (his family) for unexplained reasons, ordered the assassination of the journalist Jamal Khashoggi and that, even more worrisome, had spies in Twitter and McKinsey that helped him track down dissidents and silence critics. McKinsey and Twitter are still actively working with the Saudis and nobody has nothing to say about it... Not surprisingly the Saudi Prince Alwaleed is the second largest investor in twitter ATM through the Kingdom Holding.
Maybe we should refocus our priorities on the issues at large, not just those issues that are beneficial to the US in their war for the global supremacy.
I understand this is how modern pro-wrestling news addresses issues, but assembling a mass of emotionally-inflammatory things doesn't buttress your point.
Specific countries have greater or lesser individual rights and adherence to law.
Why doesn't it make sense to take that into account when extending trust to specific pieces of software running on your device?
>data going to the NSA or something, but in the extremely limited cases where it does protections exist with oversight.
They didn't build the Utah Data Center because of their extremely limited amount of data.
We all like to joke about our data going to the NSA because our data has been repeatedly been caught going to the NSA.
I love that people point to one of the smallest NSA data centers as if its going to prove some sort of point.
Regardless, this is exactly the kind of whataboutism that I am talking about. Every government collects all the data it can. The difference is that the NSA targets foreign governments and terror organizations. The Chinese government targets the same but also goes after their citizens, foreign citizens, foreign corporations, etc.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LOVEINT
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2013_global_surveillance_discl...
Sorry, but you seem a little naive. I recommend reading up on the US domestic surveillance program that the government was caught red handed engaging in.
We have almost a million people holding a TS or higher clearance, and have on average one incident a year of someone attempting to spy on a spouse or love interest, to which they get rolled up in their regular poly. So basically not a problem at all.
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010s_global_surveillance_disc...
I never denied that the IC spies on foreign governments and terror organizations. In fact, we are really fucking good at it. You can't query or access domestic communications or those of USPER without review by the FISA courts and high level approval.
Thanks for the laugh, this was one of the funnier things I've read in awhile.
I don't mean this as a political issue, but in your comment I see one of the reasons Trump appeals to people. He promotes a mindset of "stop handwringing and just fix the damn problem."
Here we know the following:
1) DJI devices have an always-on connection
2) Chinese government is unfriendly to US and exerts strong control over Chinese companies
3) China regularly blocks US companies for whatever reason they decide.
So yeah, we can say "but banning DJI won't solve the general problem of bad companies; we shouldn't just focus on China; is a ban really fair? etc etc. Or, we can just say "screw it -- China treats US companies like shit and we're not gonna just hand over all our drone info"
Here [1], CISA assesses China-made drones as a national security risk. That is a non-partisan agency. But your response is:
* American tech companies are just as data-hungry, if not more. -> irrelevant, this is about foreign cyberattacks or foreign data mining
* China produces more user-controllable devices than American brands. -> irrelevant
* Boogeyman -> Scare word
* Ignoring the much larger and complicated problem -> Deflects and says we can't do /anything/ unless we consider all angles and do /everthing/
This leads to endless handwringing, and is one of the reasons the left has support of only 50% of Americans, when it should be (in my opinion) a huge majority. Because we're endlessly caught up in the attitude of "nope, we really can't do anything in the face of obviously problematic issues." Gosh, it feels racist to ban a Chinese tech company (even though the Chinese government does actually target our cyber infrastructure). Gosh, what about the bad American companies?
[1] https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/24362988/cybersecurit...
The same cannot be said of the Chinese government who may be happy to get extensive drone footage of everyday US infrastructure which can be used in a future war.
Meanwhile, China won't even let Google provide a valid map of the country... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_Maps#Google_Maps_in_Chi...
But tell us all more about how we should be more concerned about a US company requiring an internet login.
On one hand I understand we'll need to move to more insular and protective policies and basically ban foreign technology in so many places, on the other hand I don't want a gov like Ethiopia to have the choice between having no technology or being spied to the bone by all of its tech providers. The EU would be the only place with a one in a million chance to pull it off, there sure must be another way ?
Unfortunately this is required by regulators in many countries. In Thailand you can't fly a drone without a license. You need to obtain the license before activating the drone and provide your information and the license number at time of activation (which is tied to drone serial number).
It sucks but it's the law here.
dji having access to cameras also strips anyone the drone can see of their human right to privacy
An accompanying requirement would be to document interfaces to hardware subsystems (chip spec sheets would suffice).
With drones, the potential for mischief is too great to let malware be smuggled in.
Is this a politically and technically realistic goal ? Or am I talkin' thru my hat ?
https://betaflight.com/
or
https://github.com/iNavFlight/inav
or
https://ardupilot.org/
among others
We used to spend ludicrous amounts of money to fly spy planes to map hostile countries - now a hostile country has a access to a huge number of drones providing live camera data. These drones are hard to track so the government doesn't always know if they've been flown near sensitive areas. It would be negligent of the government to not try to do something about it.
The US is embracing protectionism because we lost the manufacturing advantage. We lost the advantage because we outsourced our manufacturing to China with the pipe dream that we could keep the "higher end" of the value chain. It's as if we can magically have senior engineers without training junior ones in factories. It's as if the equally ambitious and talented Chinese fellows wouldn't want to climb up the value chain. As a result, we have lost talent. We have lost know-how. We have lost the supply chain. We have lost the intuition of how to optimize or scale manufacturing.
What a shame.
Worth noting that this is a different kind of protectionism than that sometimes practiced by developing nations to build up their local infrastructure and industry. In both cases you end up with higher domestic prices and lower quality of goods (at least at first) but at least in the case of the developing nation you do actually build up some domestic infrastructure and industry in the meantime. (Or, at least, you have the opportunity to do so.)
That's not what's happening here as there is no build-up for us to do. This is just the US government acting on behalf of US companies to shield them from competition so they can soak the domestic market for every cent without interference. There's no way any of this is going to reverse or even slow down the trend of enshittification - in fact, it's going to accelerate it.
It's one of those things that's just so dumb you assume it's only congressional election year virtue signaling designed to get some headlines and then be quietly negotiated away during 'reconciliation', yet congressional processes are so dysfunctional there's always a risk it accidentally becomes law.
Especially after all the footage of essentially-hobby-grade drones with familiar open-source flight controller software being turned into very effective weapons of war in Ukraine.
But I think that the cat is out of the bag and that DRM will be the attempted solution to this kind stuff. It's going to go poorly though.
What part can you regulate and control? Not the batteries or the motors, or the off the shelf microcontrollers.
This is closer to banning moonshine which was arguably fairly effective.
> not be a plant of any value what so ever
It’s long been a perfectly viable strategy to plant pot on public lands and then come back for harvest. That doesn’t mean people are tossing seeds randomly, but lower rewards are balanced by lower risks. Some customers are always interested in savings cash even for a terrible product.
[0] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutation_breeding
That said, I think enforcement would be more effective for drones. Marijuana can be effectively enjoyed in the privacy of your own home, but that's only true for a limited extent of drones. They're noisy and usually flown out in the open where annoyed neighbors can narc on you. Furthermore, just my subjective guess, I think people will be more willing to break the rules to enjoy marijuana than to enjoy drones. Marijuana is very effective at making a shit life tolerable, so people are more willing to break the law for it (and alcohol, etc).
And it'll be the same here in this context. If the government wants to make drones illegal because people are using them domestically for vigilante/terrorism purposes that'll be quite difficult.
People regularly ran clandestine grow operations that used 100kw+ of power for years and were never caught. If there's a desire for drones to commit crimes than someone will easily be able to make a clandestine drone factory.
The MK4 delivers pretty much the same quality at the same speed as the P1P.
Paying 30% more to get an open-source, fully modular, fully repairable and customizable product that's made sustainably with fair wages is not a huge markup.
I'd gladly pay 30% more to get an Android phone that's fully modular, open-source, repairable, upgradable and made in the EU.
The printers are both pretty identical in performance today. And while CoreXY has significantly more headroom in case you'd like to upgrade the current bottlenecks, that's not an option with the Bambu printers anyway.
Lots of people want to do this but the place for it is like a DARPA challenge not in the general hobby. If the authorities got wind of it then down come the regulations and no more hobby.
It's very clear that China is an enemy that has to be dealt with by US
Maybe it was not a good idea to kill RND in favor of greed?
Do you remember the parable of the ground breaking publication with its findings never finding a way into industry?
Musk often moaned about how hard it is to make things. It's our culture/society/economy a lot of the mechanisms are things we've made up sometimes going against reality. If we want to make something easier we would have to apply ourselves?
In 1950 the Chinese had 83% working in agriculture, the USA had 7%. (Today it is 22% and 1.6%)
You could argue they had access to abundant cheap labor but it is more practical to say we don't have access because everything is insanely expensive. Everything we do primarily benefits people who are useless to the process.
If you cant afford babies there is no need to have a family, no need to build houses for them. If one does accidentally a baby training and educating it should benefit everyone except the baby and the future?
We did all that and then boo hoo, China this China that?
> "the proposed legislation won't do anything meaningful toward those ends."
So DJI drones as a whole aren't banned, just the parts that transmit?
0. https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/118/hr2864/text
1. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/1601
And this is further making the rest of the world enraged, china more so. Today they released Open source Deep Seek which beats GPT 4o in coding problems.
The train has left the station and the US is stuck. On the wrong platform. With no ticket.
Let me guess, the train is to a third tier Chinese city no one is interesting in going to, on tracks that the local government can't afford to pay the construction financing on, let alone future maintenance.
But major Chinese cities are very far ahead of America in terms of infrastructure. Similarly DJI is very far ahead of any of its competitors.
Banning Chinese things because of politics is one thing. But pretending it's because they're inferior is just ridiculous.
China funded all that pretty infrastructure on massive local debt that the fees are not covering. Will be interesting to see how that works out long term.
Edit: I love China. I love the chinese people. I loved Shanghai of the 2010s. I've worked with a ton of amazing chinese developers in the Bay Area that were stranded after tiananmen, and I'm sad for their tragedy but they were definitely a boon to the USA. I don't think Americans are superior to Chinese in any way. I also don't think a new building/infrastructure being nicer than old buildings/infrastructure proves anything anyone who upgraded to a new car from an old one doesn't already know.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-speed_rail_in_China https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-speed_rail_in_the_United_... (TL;DR: China's high speed rail network is the longest and most used in the world, as well as cheaper than the US's)
Again, China's high speed rail utilization is not even able to pay for it's initial build out, and is very under utilized as it goes to tier 3 locations that don't justify it. Will be interesting to see how it plays out once 'maintenance debt' (technical debt but for infrastructure) gets added to the 'build out debt'. If those tier 3 cities turn tier 1 it will look like genius investment, but I don't see it happening.
But yes...there very well may be a security concern there too. Bambu sends/receives info from the companies servers. At least once this has allowed a supposed firmware update to cause a large number of printers to start printing uncommanded. This is a major safety and security risk and it was largely ignored by the consumer community due to Bambu "making things easier".
So yeah...perhaps we should start looking into these companies...and exactly where their subsidies do/may come from.
1.) DJI offers many drones related to infrastructure mapping and maintenance, as well as agricultural tasks. From a national security perspective, it is a non-trivial threat vector for a Chinese company to not only have intimate knowledge of US infrastructure by being their drone supplier, but also by becoming a dependency of US infrastructure. In the event of a war, all of the drones could be grounded or used for nefarious purposes.
2.) When it comes to protectionism, I'm generally against it, but I have different thoughts when it comes to China. They have banned Uber, Google, YouTube, Facebook, Amazon, etc, and just make their own versions of it. Then they have absolutely no respect for international laws when it comes to IP. They don't compete economically according to the same rules as everyone else, and don't deserve to be treated the same way.
3.) I have 2 DJI drones. The fact that there is no mention of compensation in this legislature is absurd. Fortunately, I don't rely on these for my business, but imagine if you were a filmmaker, tree trimmer, real estate agent, etc, who had bought many drones for your business. Not only are you grounding the tools that they've already come to depend on, but there isn't an existing viable alternative on the market for many of these tasks.
That's only an issue if the drone somehow depends on an external Internet-based server, instead of just a plain radio link between the drone and its controller. The law should target that unnecessary dependency, if it exists, instead of banning even standalone drones.
Unfortunately I suspect this group is already quite small due to the existing heavy-handed regulation of drones for anything other than recreational use. Or they're at least "under the table."
You need a drone pilot's license to legally fly a drone for anything other than recreational use. This has already decimated a lot of the most direct and interesting use cases for us.
https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/house-bill/2864
That bill was tacked onto a big "must pass" defense authorization and may not have survived on its own.
Here's an article with some speculation on why Stefanik introduced this bill: https://dronexl.co/2024/06/06/drone-industry-outrage-stefani...
She's Dick Cheney to MTG/Boeberts Dubya Bush.
All of these politicians who have these completely transactional relationships, I just find utterly gross. I mean, do they have any actual friends? For example, Trump completely disparaged Ted Cruz's wife and father in 2016, Cruz called Trump a "pathological liar" back then, only to do a total 180 and turn into another boot licker.
E.g. there are tons of Republican "elites" who know that the whole "stop the steal" stuff and falsehoods around Trump winning in 2020 are complete, total, and utter bullshit. We know this because they've said it! My favorite example is when Liz Cheney wrote in her book that Republican Rep Mark Green said, as he was signing electoral vote objection sheets on Jan 6, "The things we do for The Orange Jesus." (In transparency, Green later denied this).
My point is its one thing to do what your constituents desire. Its another thing to propagate lies and bullshit because you think that will help you gain power, even if your constituents do love those lies and bullshit. I'd also point out that there have been a number of conservative and Republican leaders (not many, but some) who actually have some honor and have called out these lies, which has usually forced them to retire or leave the party.
I think “principled Republicans” don’t know what time it is. Trump’s only mistake was not saying “I formally concede” before spending years saying the election was stolen. That’s the new normal and has been since 2000.
For one, despite her rhetoric, Hillary Clinton actually conceded the 2016 election. Obama actually sat down with Trump when he was president-elect in the White House. I don't recall Obama egging on an unruly mob to attack the Capitol to prevent certification of Trump's win.
And similarly, I'm having a very difficult time believing that Bush supporters would have conceded as graciously as Gore did in 2000. So spare me with the "both sides"-isms.
Gore, more than anyone in recent memory, deserves a special place in hell for helping turn American elections into the circus we have today. Gore exploited a loophole in Florida election law to seek hand recounts only in counties that had gone heavily in his favor. Since hand recounts identify valid votes the machine rejected, hand recounting a Gore-leaning subset of all the ballots would identify disproportionately more new Gore votes. It was blatant cheating, and on top of that the (apparently innumerate) Florida Supreme Court did things like allow the results of partially completed hand recounts to be added to certified election results. The U.S. Supreme Court struck down Gore’s shenanigans twice, once in a per curiam decision, and the other in a 7-2. (The part that everyone remembers, the 5-4 part, was only about whether to give Florida yet another chance to do a valid recount. But it was Gore’s fuckery that put the Supreme Court in the lose-lose position of having to decide that issue.)
There is nobody who hates election denial more than me. We should throw people in prison for saying that duly elected officers are illegitimate or that elections were stolen. We shouldn’t be able to litigate election results for all but the most obvious malfeasance. Seeing America today reminds me of the third world country I’m from, and it sickens me to see Americans behaving like third world people.
False dichotomy.
> Gore exploited a loophole in Florida election law to seek hand recounts only in counties that had gone heavily in his favor.
What you call "exploit[ing] a loophole," others would call "invoking a statutory procedure to exercise a right created for candidates by the legislature." Nothing stopped the Bush campaign from doing the same in counties that went heavily for them — instead, the Bush campaign lawyered up to try to stop the recounts altogether [0]. (And perhaps you've forgotten about the infamous "Brooks Brothers riot" [1] by out-of-state Bush lawyers and staffers.)
And let's not forget: Gore won the popular vote nationwide, which is irrelevant legally but of nontrivial weight morally.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2000_United_States_presidentia...
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brooks_Brothers_riot
But to circle back to my point above, this is why Trump was inevitable and necessary. Republicans must use the Gore standard for litigating elections, the Hilary Clinton standard for talking about elections they lost, and the Alvin Bragg standard for political prosecutions. If Republican presidents aren’t appointing judges who will look for constitutional standards hidden inside “penumbras,” they are committing political malpractice.
(And the “popular vote” has zero weight morally. It tells us nothing, because candidates would campaign differently if the popular vote actually mattered. If field goals counted for 7 points in football, teams would play the game differently.)
https://theracket.news/p/stop-going-stefanik-committee-fools
She doesn't care about whether the bill does something valid or even whether it survives legal challenges, as long she can use it to score political points. It's a real shame. Congresspeople are supposed to be servants beholden to the public good, not power-hungry sycophants who can't be bothered with the details of governance.
I've never seen her. I've never heard from her locally. You can't fucking find Elise. It's all events in the past. There's never been a townhall up in this portion of her region.
Bonus: Her husband is a lobbyist for a leading gun industry trade group. https://www.timesunion.com/news/article/Stefanik-s-husband-K...
If Alice Armalite or Bob Browning[0] wants something advanced, they call their guy who knows not just Stefanik, but probably a bunch of other reps socially through her.
Who's more likely to actually get the ear of a politician: you, or Alice Armalite?
To be clear, I don't think it's a good look for a politician to have personal ties that close with any lobbyist, even ones for the American Foundation for Fluffy and Adorable Kittens.
[0] Not real people, one suspects.
But GP didn’t care about industry lobbying, just wanted to cry about guns.
China isn't militarily supporting Russia or Ukraine. Ukraine's drone army is built from cheap Chinese drones. China is neutral. The argument that it hasn't sanctioned Russia means it is a party to the war on Russia's side is an argument of the form "if you aren't with us, you are against us." But then, you'd think the US would levy the same kind of vitriol at e.g. India.
China is led by a General Secretary of the Communist Party's central committee. Taiwan and China are recognized by the United States by international treaty as one country.
China is "attacking" the US? The US and China are in economic warfare (an economic war started by the United States under the Trump Administration). The reason for this is the US sees China's economic rise as a threat to its global position.
Neutrality in the face of gross violations of international law amounts to tacit support. And yes, I understand that you have addressed this point in your comment, but whataboutism gets us nowhere. If a country is violating human rights, they should be held accountable.
> Taiwan and China are recognized by the United States by international treaty as one country.
A treaty not worth the paper it's written on. It's clear that the United States would defend Taiwan militarily were it to come to that, so mentioning as a reason to punish China that China continues to provoke Taiwan militarily is very relevant.
> The reason for this is the US sees China's economic rise as a threat to its global position.
Ahh yes, of course, this war being entirely the US' fault.
Overall hysterical post but this line was the best by far
China supporting Russia in massive military expansion, US says. Beijing helping with drone production, space-based capabilities and ballistic missile production https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/apr/12/china-supporti...
China is lead by a dictator
Biden calls Xi a dictator https://www.reuters.com/world/biden-calls-xi-dictator-after-...
Germany's foreign minister called Xi Jinping a “dictator” https://www.cnn.com/2023/09/19/china/china-germany-xi-dictat...
"Biden calls so-and-so a mean thing" is not evidence of mean thing. Using it as evidence is a logical fallacy ("argumentum ab auctoritate"). To help you understand why the US president said this, leaders call each other mean things (and even sometimes vaguely call of other's assassinations) as provocations, and in order to shape public opinion (yours).
If DJI is doing nasty things, prohibit the nasty things DJI doing in the law, not the brand. Then condemn DJI if needed. How do this law protect from any DJi competitor doing the same stuff (or even a spinoff company through a complex scheme)?
Not that they care.
People who want to move this country even further in the direction of Rule By Law, as opposed to Rule Of Law.
This sort of thing works out well for the already-connected and corrupt, and it's not like anyone in 2024 is deluded that we make principled decisions on anything.
DJI is not an acronym, it's the name of a company. And DJI is the most famous drone company; asking to "define DJI", on an article for a site about drones like that one, would be like asking to "define Boeing" on an article for a site about airplanes.
Founded in 2006, worth over $15 billion.
It's not quite as widely known as say Apple, Google, or Disney.
But it has more brand awareness than most other modern brands.
I'd recon it beats Alibaba, Figma, Webflow, etc...
Besides, from reading the article, context alone should tell you that DJI is a Chinese drone brand.
This is frustrating.
DJI Seems to Believe That It Is Possible Its Drones Will Be Banned - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40609973 - June 2024 (1 comment)
DJI might get banned next in the US - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40171565 - April 2024 (81 comments)
In a first, FAA rescinds DJI drone's Remote ID compliance status - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36732256 - July 2023 (6 comments)
Pentagon Puts DJI on Blacklist - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33150567 - Oct 2022 (188 comments)
US will ban investment in 8 Chinese companies, including DJI - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29566125 - Dec 2021 (10 comments)
GOP’s top FCC official calls for ban on DJI drone sales in US - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28951488 - Oct 2021 (1 comment)
FCC Official calls for ban on DJI drones - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28939517 - Oct 2021 (4 comments)
US Government adds DJI to commerce blacklist over ties to Chinese government - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25468406 - Dec 2020 (1 comment)
Drone firm DJI promises 'local data mode' to fend off US government's mooted ban - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24444443 - Sept 2020 (102 comments)
Drone Maker D.J.I. May Be Sending Data to China, U.S. Officials Say - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15820987 - Dec 2017 (72 comments)
---
Side note on the current post: usually we downweight "bill goes through intermediate state change" stories because they tend to be follow-ups [1] rather than significant new information [2]. That is, the discussion tends to be substantively the same at each step. I've made an exception in this case because there (maybe) hasn't been too much discussion of this one so far.
[1] https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que...
[2] https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&so...