Notices by Oliver Reichenstein (reichenstein@mastodon.social)

I am trying to stay away from US news and stay focused on working. Once in a while the idicracy hits me here and there. He now wants to conquer Canada, Greenland and Panama? Must be a misunderstanding, right? No. He said it in a press conference. His sons are in Greenland. CNN has pundits explaining the "rationale". And he said it like the very asshole he is. It's so messed up. And it will get a lot worse. I'm so upset with the idiots that elected him.

The most Swiss thing I can think of is that we clean our tunnels. Apparently, we have been cleaning our tunnels for over 50 years. Supposedly, it's done for safety (clean means bright and bright is safer than dark), but the real reason is that we feel that clean tunnels are just better than dirty tunnels.

Jet lagged beyond reason, when I close my eyes and think about the future, I see fully functional sky scraping high tech constructs topping over—not violently, they slowly just bend over under their own weight and silently fall. Trillion dollar super technology giants lethargically stranding, like the abandoned Star Destroyer, but still new and many of them with different shapes into and on top of each other. Hi tech is volatile, banks stand on long skinny legs, the economy is a house of cards.

Three months later: they made the right decisions. Since then, Kamala did well.

What they need to figure out in the last 30 days is that people talk about them and not about Trump. This is his last resort. To just flood the zone with radioactive shit so people mention him, however badly.

Kamala was gaining points when she dominated the narrative. People need to talk about her (positively), not Trump (negatively).

Bad news from France. After 40 years of defeat the LePens have finally made it. Bad news for Europe as well. Macron's miscalculation was as spectacular as it was predictable.

I can see the same kind of long faces after the election in November in the US. Nobody knows the future but if the Democrats don't wake the fuck up, to me, their defeat is almost tangible. The consequences of that election gamble going sour will be global and devastating for generations with everything that is at play.

So fingers crossed for tonight's debate. May the force of Rhetoric be with you, Tim Walz.

To both Republican talking points there are solid objective answers. Western countries need immigration (age pyramid and who wants the immigrants necessary low paid jobs) and inflation (regulate price gouging).

But the old fascist receipe ("Problem? Violence!") is simpler and triggers instincts. Instincts tend to win over logic and reason. That violence never solved anything and only makes things worse... is common knowledge, easily forgotten, it only gets remembered when it's too late.

Americans I met since then tell me that there's a deep divide between men and women, often splitting couples in two. A lot of people that see themselves as rich or potentially rich simply don't care what a gigantic criminal asshole danger Trump is. They just hear less taxes and cover eyes, ears and nose, because they think that they'll profit somehow someday. Also, "a package of Sensodyne for 8 bucks sends a strong message." That companies need regulation is not what Americans want to hear.

The effect of Trump being mentioned daily is that people (or should I say: men) that hardly follow the news think:

"He is mentioned a lot so he is important. He's powerful. I go for the important guy, the winner. Also: less taxes."

The more negative he goes the more he drags her down because people assume that there is always some form of balance between two choices.

If she manages to capture the narrative as in the first few days and after the debate Trump will drown in his shit.

Walz came across as nice, good guy but a bit naive. Vance was outright Macchhiavellian, eloquent but ruthless, completely dishonest and calculative.

You could still tell when he was lying by contrast. When it came to the only topic where Trump could score somewhat ("bringing manufacturing back to the US") you could feel that Vance was less calculative, showed less controlled tension because he knew a that for once he had a real talking point (the only one) where he didn't need to lie.

I think the most natural reaction to a liar is to turn away and reject the dialogue. But Walz had to show that he is willing to reach across the isle. Just as with the fracking and the gun ownership he communicated "I am eligible if you're Republican." Vance tried to reframe "Yeah, maybe Walz seems okay but he works for evil stupid lazy Kamala." Everything was Kamala's fault and every problem from School violence to inflation to house prices could be solved by kicking immigrants out.

I expected Walz to be prepared to face a cold-blooded liar. It was obvious from previous interviews Vance could talk his way out of the most damning situations by lying in the most shameless way. Each time he was confronted about his remarks comparing Trump to Hitler, he found an oily way to wriggle free and go on an attack.

Walz held his ground, he came across as credible, human. Is showing good will the best way to deal with a cold blooded liar?

Because I perceived that my friend's father was a smart guy, as a 9 year old I thought that Reagan must have been the right person to win the presidency in 1980. Until the Olympics the image of Reagan continuously shifted. I remember starting to have stronger doubts when after the LA Olympics he made this stupid "we begin bombing in five minutes" off the record joke https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/We_begin_bombing_in_five_minutes

The first presidential debate I saw was in 1980. I've been following US politics ever since. All I remember since then was how "cool" Reagan sounded. They only showed highlights of the debate, and you have to imagine how they fade in the original voice, and about five seconds later, the German dubbing. I remember the two faces on blue grey backgrounds on TV of my half American friend Robert, whose father was a big Reagan supporter.

Marques Brownlee reviews another unfinished unnecessary AI toy https://youtu.be/ddTV12hErTc?si=M4BmbFUzWw3kJGTb

@marcthiele I'm a fan of his attitude, rhetoric, and what he says. He's so charming. I think I'll send him a notebook, and then die of fear and hope that he reviews it. 🤣

@marcthiele I felt old when I saw his first videos, thinking something like: "Yeah, yeah, another YouTuber, everybody has to like him, because everybody likes him, but.: I'm not everyb... oh, he does this really well, the production qual... he's very eloqu... and charmi.... Man is he char... He looks so good and he's so intelli... Dammed, he has style and taste and it shows in the way he spea... I love this man!" What is he doing on YouTube? He's Oprah for geeks. Get him at BT!

Reading the DOJ suit, tech blogs, collecting the tech blogger's, Apple fans' and pundit's reactions:

Tech bloggers: "The DOJ doesn't understand technology."
Apple bloggers: "The DOJ doesn't understand Apple."
Apple fans: "The DOJ doesn't understand anything."

No one doubts their own legal understanding. It's not Hackernews, it's a suit. I'll read it before opining. So far it seems fairly comprehensible. It's aggressive, but it's a suit, not a lullaby. Much easier to read than the DMA.

Done with my first read. I have a lot of highlights, notes and comments to go through, still, but one thing I can say with certainty: This is a well educated and highly educating document. I can sympathize with tech people trying to find hairs in the technical soup. It's hard not to—here and there I may have spotted one myself. But, rather than feeling superior ("I get Apple"), I tried to read it like any other legal document, where I'm *not* the expert, and what I've learned was quite a lesson.

Yesterday we saw the first wave of tech journalists, VCs and bloggers without any legal expertise but a very strong bias that likely haven't read the paper but believe that they "get it".

They now meet a second group of legally trained minds that took the time to read the document:

https://www.theverge.com/2024/3/22/24109033/doj-apple-antitrust-lawsuit-legal-expert-praise

Note: Most devs will be careful to not bite the hand that feeds them.