Ultimately, American companies will be pushed out of the EU market. It’s not going to happen overnight, but the outcome is unavoidable in light of the ongoing system collapse in the US.
EU software scene would take a decade to catch up. Only alternative being if AI really delivers on being a force multiplier - but even then EU would not have access to SOTA internally.
Given what happened with DeepSeek, "not state of the art" can still be simultaneously really close to the top, very sudden, very cheap, and from one small private firm.
Not really with the EU data sources disclosure mindset, GDPR and all that. China has a leg up in the data game because they care about copyright/privacy and IP even less than US companies. EU is supposedly booting US companies because of this.
The data sources is kinda what this court case is about, and even here on HN a lot of people get very annoyed by the application of the "open source" label to model weights that don't have the source disclosure the EU calls for.
GDPR is about personally identifiable humans. I'm not sure how critical that information really is to these models, though given the difficulty of deleting it from a trained model when found, yes I agree it poses a huge practical problem.
> and even here on HN a lot of people get very annoyed by the application of the "open source" label to model weights that don't have the source disclosure the EU calls for.
That's because they are obviously trained on copyrighted content but nobody wants to admit it openly because that opens them to even more legal trouble. Meanwhile China has no problem violating copyright or IP so they will gladly gobble up whatever they can.
I don't think you can really compete in this space with the EU mindset, US is playing it smart and leaving this to play out before regulating. This is why EU is not the place for these kinds of innovations, the bureaucrats and the people aren't willing to tolerate disruption.
a) highly qualified people, even European natives move to Silicon Valley. There is a famous photo of the OpenAI core team with 6 Polish engineers and only 5 American ones;
b) culture of calculated risk when it comes to investment. Here, bankruptcy is an albatross around your neck, both legally and culturally, and is considered a sign of you being fundamentally inept instead of maybe just a misalignment with the market or even bad luck. You'd better succeed on your first try, or your options for funding will evaporate.
Worth pointing out that DeepMind was founded in London, the HQ is still here, and so is the founder and CEO. I've lived in North London for 8 years now, there are _loads_ of current-and-former DeepMind AI people here. Now that OpenAI, Anthropic, and Mistral have offices here the talent density is just going up.
On risk, we're hardly the Valley, but a failed startup isn't a black mark at all. It's a big plus in most tech circles.
The UK is a bit different in this regard, same as Scandinavia.
But in many continental countries, bankruptcy is a serious legal stigma. You will end up on public "insolvency lists" for years, which means that no bank will touch you with a 5 m pole and few people will even be willing to rent you or your new startup office space. You may even struggle to get banal contracts such as "five SIMs with data" from mobile phone operators.
There seems to be an underlying assumption that people who go bankrupt are either fatally inept or fraudsters, and need to be kept apart from the "healthy" economy in order not to endanger it.
I don’t think such articles are responsible for the drop. As a Canadian, i wouldn’t visit the US even if i though i was perfectly safe there. I simply don’t wish to contribute even a single dollar towards our enemy.
> i wouldn’t visit the US even if i though i was perfectly safe
That's certainly your right and I get where you are coming from but
> our enemy.
Calling the US your "enemy" is a pretty strong stance, especially considering how deeply tied our countries are economically and culturally.
Don't want to visit? That's fine, but let's not pretend for a second that every American supports all the things you oppose. Only a plurality, not a majority, of Americans even voted for Trump and more than 75% of us still consider you an ally.
But you might want to lay off the media and tone down the rhetoric and drama a bit. Shit like that is why things are the way they are now.
This approach seems overly mechanistic to me. You can have an election, and yet the results of said election can be completely predetermined like they have been in russia for the past 20 years or so. The US toyed with gerrymandering and disenfranchisement even before it officially embraced the current flavour of fascism. So the soil is fertile enough to take the next logic step towards a full dictatorship.
By your logic, in the grand scheme of thing, it’s ok to deport elcritch and then say “elcritch’s” case was different and provide it with national and international attention and legal help.
Full disclosure, i’m not arguing in good faith. As a Canadian I don’t believe the US has a future, so I’m merely highlighting an argument which is symptomatic of the country’s downfall.
You could construe my logic that way, but no I’m saying the DHS was likely wrong in that instance and it caused uproar and backlash. Unlike other nations where few would care if the government overstepped. Governments will always overreach, it’s how people pushback which matters.
Also I’m more likely to be arrested and deported for silently praying in the UK.
However there’s also political tactics of “look at that poor student being deported” when said student was calling for jihad, intifada, and antisemitism and violating visas on top of that, which was sort of my original point.
Heh and is Canada fairing any different? Remember when Trudeau froze bank accounts for truckers protesting Covid lockdowns or whatnot. Maybe Trudeau shutting down parliament to seemingly avoid scrutiny. Hopefully it’s just news sensationalism and not the downfall of Canada.
Any difference is going to disappear in only a few years. What matters is the direction the US taking. This happened to Russia about 14 years ago, and it’s happening to the US now.
I think they wanted to hear that it’s ok to invade other countries. Despite China being very pragmatic in all matters, China’s view on Taiwan is highly irrational. They want to have it because… well, just because. At the same time they manage to mostly ignore the territories that have been stolen by the Russian Empire. From the practical standpoint they actually have a better chance to regain the Russian territories gradually (through negotiations). I mean, Taiwan can be invaded, but it will be a scorched earth type of invasion making it entirely pointless.
Saying China wants Taiwan “just because” over simplifies the situation.
During the Chinese Communist Revolution the previous government of China retreated to Taiwan. The official name of the Taiwanese government is “Republic of China”, demonstrating that their legitimacy stretches back to this time period.
While Chinese settlers in Taiwan dates back further, China claimed the island in the 17th century. The island was under Japanese rule for about 50 years, before being returned to China in the post WW2 treaties.
The history is deep, and Taiwanese independence is a relatively new thing.
I think it is fair to say conquest of Taiwan has always been an issue of national pride for the PRC. It isn't a national security threat.
It is based on a manifest destiny ideology that the PRC is the only legitimate heir of Chinese culture and history, and sole rightful ruler of all people of Chinese descent.
I would say it’s a potential national security threat. The Taiwanese government does call itself The Republic of China.
From a security standpoint it would be like if a group of US politicians and other elites took over Cuba and called themselves The Republic of The United States. Yeah, an island nation wouldn’t win a fight, but their intentions are in the title.
That makes perfect sense. It puzzles me why supporters of the current US regime think Canada won’t resist the US. Be it a trade war or a military invasion, Canada will make the cost so great that it may eliminate the US from the world arena. Canada has been cornered and has nothing to lose at this point.
> It has everything to lose by continuing to rely on the US, which is why you're seeing such a hard pivot toward Europe and Asia.
The problem is, this kind of pivot would take a long time and be extremely difficult. Out there in the real world, real Canadians have a lot to lose.
The US strong-arming its allies in this way puts them in a massive bind near term. Canada could eventually adapt to a different world order with reduced reliance on the US, but it would suffer a recession (or worse) in the process.
They have no good options here, because how can you really deal with a madman? (In a game theoretical sense [0], if not also a literal one) - but I think the ideal strategy is to acquiesce to the US and pursue these efforts as quickly as they can to remove any reliance going forward.
This is made more difficult by the fact that there seems no obvious way to actually appease the US, whose current goals and objectives are completely opaque.
This is silly. US is Canada's biggest trading partner and one of the largest borders in the world. 80% of people live within 1 hour of the border. Free trade has allowed both economies to prosper. Canada has everything to gain with free trade. You are right on over reliance, but free trade benefits everyone.
It takes 2 to make a trade, and the best strategy for an iterated prisoner's dilemma scenario is tit-for-tat. The party that started the silliness should end it, but until then, Canada should rightly consider stronger ties with the Europe - they do share a border with a European country after all.
Depending how you count "borders" and "European countries" they share a border with 2 (France via St Pierre and Miquelon, Denmark via Greenland) and share a landlord with a third.
The best strategy is tit-for-tat with eventual forgiveness attempts. It's way too soon for that (the US is still controlled by Republicans) but one eventually re-opening trade might be optimal, assuming there's still a USA to trade with.
Tit-for-tat inherently forgives the moment the other party stops defecting, in a game theoretic sense. It's "start friendly, every future move copies other party's previous move".
We had free trade. The US has, in a very short period of time, squandered what was a highly profitable and mutually beneficial trading relationship.
There was already a sentiment of distrust in Canada about being so dependent on American goodwill. You can see this in the debates from the 1998 federal election (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gyYjRmM7RDY) on the establishment of CUSFTA, the precursor to NAFTA and later CUSMA. Brian Turner (red tie in that video) argued that free trade in Canada would lead inevitably 'reduce' Canada to becoming a 'colony' of the United States. He lost the election, and the agreement went through. Here we are almost three decades later and, as Canadians see it, those fears are at risk of coming true.
I'm not sure that Americans really understand that this has permanently damaged the relationship between our countries. It's going to be a generation before there will be the political will in Canada to consider going back to something similar to NAFTA/CUSMA again. Even assuming the United States returns to open trade policies again, the question forever on everyone's mind will be "what if another Trump gets elected?".
it is 2025, nothing takes a generation any longer unless you are implying donny and his apostoles will rule america for a generation. otherwise new administration will repair this fairly quickly
A new administration can not promise that somebody like Donald Trump will never be elected again. That's what it would take to repair this relationship.
But at this point, Trump has been re-elected with a greater margin so in terms of national interests one needs to assume the worst case (i.e. these tariffs/behaviour aren't going away).
Would it be better if they did? I think so, but as a European (but very very exposed to the US) I don't think that's an economically rational way to plan.
I wouldn't color relying on a historical ally that either produces, or is the transit corridor for, most of your food with "everything to lose".
The current trade spat is an issue, and Canada should react accordingly, but the reality is that, even with tariffs, the US still represents a very profitable trade partner, especially when they can levy tariffs of their own.
The issue is not limited to tariffs. There is consistent hostile rhetoric against Canada by multiple members of administration. And by hostile I mean threats of annexation, demands that Canada gives USA parts of its land and false accusations.
Tariffs are only part of the issue. They seem the be the first USA step meant to weaken Canada economically before USA proceeds to steal from from it.
Exactly this. It's interesting watching how Americans are talking about this issue vs Canadians. Even my liberal friends in the US think it's more "Silly" and "Troll" behaviour on Trump's part -- "you're not taking that seriously, are you?"
Yes, we're taking it seriously. It wasn't some one-off tweet. He's the official head of state and silence from the rest of the GOP and the US political class generally isn't exactly doing anything to calm tensions.
We faced heavy tariff threats under 1.0 and it wasn't anything like this. The reaction here isn't really about trade at all. It's about sovereignty.
The US is the only country that has ever invaded us.
I have been visiting Canada for decades—quite a bit of my family lives there. I was just there in 2022 for a wedding reception. It’s a nice place that seems like it won’t be a nice place in 50 years. Cops watched me like a hawk—I assume they have good reasons. Punjabi Uber driver told me he doesn’t even have to speak English because everyone at the bank, store, etc., speaks Punjabi. For some reason his elderly, past working age parents were immigrating to join him. Had to defend my being married to an American to some family friend at the wedding—there’s so many Bangladeshis there it’s possible to maintain endogenous marriage. Tried to charge my rented Tesla in a part of town that was all Indians. I let one Indian lady cut in front of me, which pissed off the Indian lady behind me, who started yelling at me “why are you letting her do that?” Not Canadian nice, certainly.
In the 1990s, Canada was a phenomenally well run and efficient country. More federalized than the U.S. (with 80% of spending run through the provinces). Canada had universal healthcare while having non-military per-capita government spending lower than the U.S. Now you’re running a sociologist experiment about what really causes prosperity and orderliness in western countries.
> The US is the only country that has ever invaded us.
Who is “us”? Surely we need to acknowledge that Europeans invaded Canada in the first place? The “us” that can make claims about having been invaded likely is just the indigenous people of that land. Of course, this applies to America as well. I do wonder what causes all of us to view a certain set of borders as the “correct” one. I also do the same thing.
> Yes, we're taking it seriously. It wasn't some one-off tweet.
As for whether Trump’s language about 51st state or whatever is a troll: I think it’s partially that. It’s really more about calling attention to the future of Canada and whether it makes more sense for it to be a part of the US than linger on its own. I don’t think it literally means annexing it through force but more like asking whether it’s mutually good for Canada to also be among the “United States” - just as you could ask that question of whether it should be in the EU.
Trump’s aggressive way of stating this has succeeded in one sense, which is drawing attention to the idea. It has backfired in another sense, which is that it is highly disrespectful and maybe has turned Canadians off that possibility entirely. Or worse, it may permanently push Canada into the arms of China or the EU. So I do agree that it is partially a troll but still destructive.
> Surely we need to acknowledge that Europeans invaded Canada in the first place?
No. Europeans (and others) "invaded" North America. The sovereign country called "Canada" didn't exist until the mid-1800s. Even the name didn't appear on maps until the mid-1500s and the indigenous peoples who lived in North America at the time certainly didn't consider themselves a part of a unified nation by that name.
> I do wonder what causes all of us to view a certain set of borders as the “correct” one.
Yeah. It's all such a mess, and if anything the European colonists (French and British) in what became Canada -- while murderous and genocidal to the first nations -- were strategically "softer" on them than their American counterparts who were openly officially genocidal.
e.g. When the treaty of Ghent was signed ending the War of 1812, the chief (and really only) "victory" for the Americans was the fact that the British gave up defending/supporting the indigenous people in the midwest who had (under Tecumseh and with the support of the British to some degree) fought off American settlers. And so the Americans were free to go in and massacre and wipe out the remaining pockets of indigenous resistance in the Americas.
& Iroquois/Mohawk under Brant fled north to Canada, where the British granted them land along the Grand River valley here in Ontario.
I actually share general skepticism about the US-Canada border and the structure of the Canadian state generally. But I also have deep skepticism of the US project generally.
I think northeastern US states have more in common with us than their own southern states. I think the Canadian political class -- both conservative and liberal -- are really parasitical awful people overall, and our own business community are oligopoly-trending douches with a penchant for using regulatory capture to screw their own citizens. I think Quebec could as easily be its own nation, in a north american federation and that the structure of much of the Canadian state is arbitrary.
But I think you've touched on something, which is that Trump has poisoned all discourse. I like many others have turned rabidly nationalist in the last few months.
In any case there's a reason why Canada exists. It's not some accident of history or just some retrograde unenlightened loyalists who liked the monarchy. Many of our ancestors saw aspects of dysfunction and injustice in the way the US was taking shape, and chose Canada as an (imperfect) alternative. And that there is an "alternate path" for governance in North America is in fact I think the precise thing that actually enrages people like Trump.
As for the "who is us?" and the invasion comment, my point is only that there is actually a long-running "meme" inside American politics since the very foundation of the US that objects to the existence of Canada at all, and included the assimilation of Canada in a large Manifest Destiny project. It's usually been a fringe position, but it has at times become amplified. E.g. under McKinley there was similar talk as what Trump is mouthing now, and of course during 1812, etc. It's "out there", but it's consistently present.
And that's the reason Canadians take this annexation talk seriously.
I see it as something similar to some of the motives driving Putin with Ukraine. All the rhetoric about "NATO at our doorstep" is just a smokescreen for what the real fear is -- he cannot countenance an alternative Russian/Ukrainian speaking polity, culturally-partially-contiguous with Russia to exist on his doorstep if it is a liberal democracy, outside of his sphere of (corrupt) control, and not subject to his kleptocracy. Because it would be an internal threat. The cost of grinding Ukraine into the ground is worth it to him if it means maintaining strict control at home.
What Trump is doing is like a kid's colouring book version of the same thing. It's crude jingoism to shore up his own base with bullshit about Canada and whatever, to build legitimacy based on jingoistic nationalism, and to try to undermine and destroy a liberal / centrist gov't on his doorstep. And, consistent with his "drill baby drill" mantra, it's also an attempt to stop climate change initiatives, to free US capital in Alberta from Canadian regulation, and to maintain/extend American control over our resource sector.
If it was just the trade spat, you might be right.
But there's also Trump repeatedly talking about annexing Canada. That goes well beyond a trade spat, and I would absolutely expect Canada to do more in response because that is in the mix. Including actively working to reduce their dependency on US-sourced or US-transiting products.
Absolutely. Canada is almost certainly going to cancel or severely limit a pending F35 order, and is actively sourcing aircraft and negotiating mutual arms deals with European partners.
Of course, NATO was founded on the assumption that the US is a reliable trading and security partner, and the defense supply chains reflect that assumption. It will take time to untangle those chains, but you're watching all of NATO speed-running that process right now.
I'm sure Rolls Royce expects their order book to grow over the next few decades. Likely some engineers have been tasked with researching the viability of creating drop-in replacement models for American engines.
> It's the US that's isolating itself. Canada isn't 'cornered'. It has the entire rest of the world to talk to and make deals with.
Yes, but any of those deals will pale in comparison to the opporunities Canada has with the wealthiest next door neighbor in the world. The oceans aren't nothing, the culture differences aren't nothing (no matter how small you try to make them with other Commonwealth countries).
Losing the US as a friend is a massive loss, and nothing will match it.
There has been some darkly hilarious reporting that much of this administration was genuinely surprised and confused that Canada didn't immediately roll over in response to US bullying. Most people realize that the world isn't made up of NPCs during childhood, but I guess the clowns currently in charge missed that developmental step. Either that or they have spent so much time on twitter and similar spaces that it has seriously warped their view of reality.
An honest question: what is wrong with reciprocal tariff? Wouldn't that be fair to both countries? I understand that there were many compromises when the countries signed trade deals like NAFTA, so we got some protective tariffs here and there, but I was wondering in general why reciprocal tariff is considered unfair.
I guess it could be fair, but those are unilateral. The official justifications such as considering sales tax, are bogus. The unofficial justification (or official depending on time of day..) is annexation. Surely, you see how this isn't perceived as fair from up North?
The trade isn't necessarily perfectly balanced, is it? In negotiations you have more flexibility if you can increase the size of the pie. Things like transit tolls or cruise ship stops are examples of that.
When there is now a 6-month backlog of people trying to take the CFSC/CRFSC courses to get their PAL, and the CAF recruitment site is constantly overloaded, yes - Canadians will definitely be resisting any military style invasion. Add that to the grassroots "Buy Canadian" movement, and no - Canadian's are not going to roll over and accept US pressure for either tariffs or annexation.
North Vietnam had 13 mil people, South Vietnam 17m. Afghanistan had 20m people at the time of invasion.
These were undeveloped countries with very low human capital. Their militaries did not hold up. And yet - how did it all turn out for the US?
Canada has 40m people, terrain ideally suited to guerilla warfare, a huge land border with the US, and a population that is not only indistinguishable from American civilians, but also enjoys much wider popular support in the US than the Vietnamese ever did.
It would be extremely foolish to think you could simply invade such a place at all, nevermind easily.
There is this bad penny bit of propaganda that a lot of people believe. Which is only the US has any agency. And everyone else does what they do either under orders from the US or as a reaction to something the US did. It's attractive if you're ignorant and stupid because it makes the world simple enough for you to think you understand everything.
Putin, the current administration and conservatives in general swallowed that hook line and sinker.
> Today we’re going to look at definitions of fascism and ask the question – you may have guessed – if Donald Trump is running for President as a fascist. Worry not, this isn’t me shifting to full-time political pundit, nor is this the formal end of the hiatus (which will happen on Nov 1, when I hope to have a post answering some history questions from the ACOUP Senate to start off on), but this was an essay I had in me that I had to get out, and working on the book I haven’t the time to get it out in any other forum but this one. And I’ll be frank, some of Donald Trump’s recent statements and promises have raised the urgency of writing this; the political science suggests that politicians do, broadly, attempt to do the things they promise to do – and the things Trump is promising are dark indeed.
> Now I want to be clear what we’re doing here. I am not asking if the Republican Party is fascist (I think, broadly speaking, it isn’t) and certainly not if you are fascist (I certainly hope not). But I want to employ the concept of fascism as an ideology with more precision than its normal use (‘thing I don’t like’) and in that context ask if Donald Trump fits the definition of a fascist based on his own statements and if so, what does that mean. And I want to do it in a long-form context where we can get beyond slogans or tweet-length arguments and into some detail.
