How will that help?

And how long did it stay around even though there was a better option? And how much more penetration into everyday life does WhatsApp have today? Right.

There is no other version. An electron app is a browser app.

That fails to acknowledge the force of the argument which is that tariffs affect innocent people.

Point is, it’s too important. If you fight back when you’re invaded, innocent people (like your own soldiers) will be killed. Consequences will be worse if you just roll over though.

Maximum pressure needs to be exerted on the US, through retaliatory tariffs, ceasing to recognise American intellectual property, and sanctions.

Competition and markets authorities are empowered to block acquisitions and it’s often high profile when it’s done due to an unfriendly power like china trying to do it. The USA is now a more aggressive power than china so acquisitions by US companies ought to be blocked by default.

This may mean less money flows from the US into the European acquired companies, but tough shit, this is too important.

We need to realise that the status quo is not what we had two years ago, because Trump changed it. He’s making the whole world poorer, and we can choose whether that poverty affects us monetarily (because we need to put money into replacing US tech) or more fundamentally - e.g. if he uses dependence on US tech to exert political control over European nations.

I’ve never said Wikipedia should deny the genocide in Gaza and you know it.

You are not a serious commenter; goodbye.

Good to know we’ve dealt with all 3 governments.

If you are not able to extrapolate, I’m not going to give an opinion on all ~200 governments in the world, or any significant fraction of them.

and this is better than the alternative to stating facts, because it might offend those who want to deny them.

Fundamental error. Wales and the wikipedia ethos is not about “not offending” people; it’s about creating a resource that can be trusted by as many people as possible.

Because they are, as well as materially motivated.

So if you’re just repeating the claim, there is no point. Say something new?

What denotes serious vs non-serious government worthy of weight?

So the statements of the Israeli government would not have much weight in this, as they have obvious incentive to lie. The government of Russia should not have much weight, because it wants to whitewash its war crimes in Ukraine. The government of the US should not have much weight, because it has been eviscerated of everyone of any intellectual capacity.

as if they are neutral observers

They are not neutral observers, but (some of them) make serious statements and are capable of responding to facts even when it concerns an ally. We don’t see that with the US. We do see it with the UK, so even though it is not neutral, it forms part of the lack of consensus.

Going on the basis of consensus means that sometimes Wikipedia will not state as fact something that is a fact. And that’s fine. It’s better than the alternative.

That’s just repeating the claim that they’re ideologically motivated.

Western governments, sans the US, are serious governments.

I agree it’s ideologically motivated, but that doesn’t affect the fact that there’s a lack of consensus. There are serious governments and academics and commentators who disagree.

Probably in time they will see the truth but that’s not for Wikipedia to predict.

I take the same approach, yes: where there is well-established consensus, Wikipedia should state that as fact. Where there is disagreement with the consensus, it should be noted proportionately.

But there is no lack of consensus on the things you mention.

I don’t think it’s the place of Wikipedia to put together the UN’s opinion and the UK’s opinion (to take two examples) and conclude that the UN’s can be stated as fact while the UK’s can’t.

I agree that the UN’s is correct, but it makes Wikipedia worse, not better, to ignore disagreement on important subjects.

And if the us government were lending someone money to buy Nvidia, that may be relevant.

Dumb thermostats last for multiple decades.

Nobody thinks they’re incapable of working this out; we think theyre deliberately advertising something dumb that lay people won’t necessarily understand is dumb. Replying that they have smart engineers is stupid because no-one denied it - we just don’t think they used those engineers to come up with the idea.

It’s the 4th largest country of origin for 4chan from what I can find. It doesn’t sound like you’re actually responding to what I said is being missed. Guess you don’t want to.

I think this sentiment is common but misses some important things. First: the UK is a big market of internet users, so losing it is not insignificant. Second: most people will not bother with a VPN because it’s annoying or costs money. Third: from the UK’s perspective, banning non-compliant sites is a good thing.

Recognising all this is important, because it’s part of resisting such censorious laws.

Potential arrest and imprisonment for failing to pay the fine, you mean? That would be a proven damage, wouldn’t it?

People don’t use Firefox because it doesn’t have a global tech company shoving it onto people

Yeah, it can work, because it’ll trigger the recall of different types of input data. But it’s not magic and if you have a 25% chance of the model you’re using hallucinating, you probably end up still with an 8.5% chance of getting bullshit after doing this.