“Spam” as a neologism doesn’t have a widely agreed upon shared definition. The most apt would seem to be “email I don’t want”. But that’s not too helpful when third party gatekeepers are trying to mass assign status to an email. The same email could be unwanted by one person and very gratefully received by the next.
Yes, because they are focused on the relevant parts for solving a specific problem.
So one could say that the article's fundamental flaw is not explaining what is the purpose of the model, therefore we cannot assess if it is capturing the relevant aspects to solve the problem.
Trump didn’t seem to disagree with the premise just the funding. His argument is that the US shouldn’t be funding it. His strategy is to put tariffs on chip imports and foreign chip manufacturers would have to build US based plants on their own dime.
> His strategy is to put tariffs on chip imports and foreign chip manufacturers would have to build US based plants on their own dime.
The counter-argument (FWIW):
> Tariffs are paid by the importer and not the exporter. The Semiconductor Industry Association (SIA) claims that tariffs would not cause fabs to be built in the US, due to the cost of the factories, which can run from $18bn to $27bn.
> "No tariff amount will equal the costs of ripping apart these investments and efficient supply chains that have enabled current US industry leadership," SIA said.
> It added: "Moreover, chip tariffs will drive away manufacturing in advanced sectors that rely on semiconductor technology, such as aerospace, AI, robotics, next-generation networks, and autonomous vehicles. If the cost of key inputs like semiconductors is too high, tech manufacturers will relocate out of the US, costing jobs and further eroding US manufacturing and technological competitiveness."
Foreign chipmakers would not pay the tariff (contrary to what Trump thinks) but their US customers, and what incentive to the foreign chipmakers to make changes? They're getting the same money and it's not costing them a dime. And where else are US businesses going to go for the product?
Even if the exporters are not directly paying the tariffs, their chips will cost consumers more, reducing the demand. So no; they’re not getting the same money.
If you were talking about some discretionary thing, like magazines, I'd agree with you.
But customers don't buy chips, they buy stuff, and chips are in everything. There's the obvious (phones, tablets etc), but also everything else, like cars, washing machines, tvs, air fryers, plus more.
Clearly tarrifs drive (domestic) prices up, which will cause some level of inflation, but it will be across the board (not on "chips"). And clearly that will weaken demand.
But given global demand that will likely not be all that noticeable. Indeed it'll likely just result in US manufacturing being less competitive. Certainly it'll make US manufactured products more expensive on the world market.
Which likely leads to more American plants moving offshore, not onshore.
> Even if the exporters are not directly paying the tariffs, their chips will cost consumers more, reducing the demand. So no; they’re not getting the same money.
So the higher cost of cars—because they have chips in them that cost more and that is passed onto drivers—will stop people from buying cars?
The higher cost of microwaves will stop people from buying microwaves? And stop buying stoves? And refrigerators?
People will buy fewer smartphones? Businesses will buy fewer laptops and servers?
Depending on how bad the hike is, maybe? You're essentially arguing that consumers are unresponsive to price increases which just isn't true.
If the hike is bad enough we might see a return to kitchen electrics that don't use microcontrollers at all. Unironically good news if you want physical buttons again.
Someone lives in the US, which is addicted to sprawling, car-centric suburbs. Car prices go up. What are they going to do? Walk? Bike? Take public transit? (Which is one of the arguments for (so-called) 15 minutes cities: it gives people more freedom to choose their mode of transportation instead of forcing one particular mode.)
Are you not going to buy a refrigerator when yours break down and food starts going bad?
While they can stretch out the depreciation/lifespan schedule, are business going to stop buying laptops and servers? If their (capex) costs go up, are the businesses going to eat that cost or pass it on to their customers?
As much as I don't think Trump thinks things out longer than it takes to say.
You can't be using the trade association's comment at face-value. Tariffs have absolutely caused factories to be build elsewhere (see car manufacturing) although where a chip site appears in the US or Mexico/Canada (NAFTA) is very arguable.
Consent isn’t required for B2B data processing and cold contact as far as I know, like it is for consumer data. There are six lawful basis including consent. The most relevant one in this case is probably legitimate interest. A company can cold contact someone at an organisation if they believe there is a genuine possibility they would buy the product or service they offer. IANAL however.
"CYA" means "Cover Your Ass", which is used when you have lawyers/compliance people using vague and over-reaching language to "cover their ass", without anything meaningful behind it.
> Consent isn’t required for B2B data processing and cold contact as far as I know, like it is for consumer data.
From what I can tell, the way this company ingests data uses personal channels and lookups. So although a company would be using their services and they are b2b, the targets of those cold emails are getting their personal data ingested by a company they have no knowledge of, and they are for sure not made aware of it in those cold emails.
If those targets are exclusively employees of a company, their professional email is being targeted, and only their professional profiles are being scraped, I would bet it's defensible. I am certain it's not the case though.
Safari also completely ignores autocomplete="off" when it thinks something is a username or password field. Even when, as a dev, I know it definitely isn't.
reply