The only places I’ve known here in Denmark to use this extensively, the benefits were very significant, like 50% extra pay, and double pay for extra hours in weekends and night hours, or you get normal pay plus an equal amount of hours off with pay. Which also amounts to double pay.

Using the people who know the job is better and cheaper than using employment agencies, even when you pay double.

So this is all about what the real consequences are, which is unknown to us because no journalist I’ve seen has asked anyone with actual legal and practical knowledge of the Greek work market.

Through the whole article this is all they can tell us?

The new legislation permits 13-hour work days, up from eight

Nothing about the real consequences, like how are the extra hours paid?
Instead we get anecdotes about people complaining this is bad. But what exactly about it is bad we don’t know from articles like this that don’t provide the most basic information of the actual consequences!

Here you can work 13 hours per day too, but the standard for a full time job is 37.5 hours per week, and the standard is important to get full unemployment benefits if you lose your job.

As I see it, the article contains no information about this apart from the part I quoted above. And it doesn’t explain exactly why people are so angry about it. There must be more to it, than just “permitting” 13-hour work days?!

PS:
13 hours is also the max here (Denmark), as you are required to have minimum 11 hours of rest between workdays.

Please don’t tell them I also use magnets for kitchen knives.
I also made a magnet bar for my Danish Design tools for the fire-wood stove.

I have no idea why they call it “integration”? It’s just a search option like any other search option.
Personally I have 10 search options enabled already, so this is number 11, and if I don’t like it, I will just disable it, which is dead easy to do, with a button for the purpose of changing settings right beside the search options.

I tried it for 2 terms I know very well, and the response was very good, but I would never trust an AI response without double checking.

I fail to see the problem? Stock companies will se their stock decrease in value, which may make it slightly harder for them to find financial support.
But on the other hand, the huge savings in banks, will make that same cash available for many other things, like borrowing for small startups, and people borrowing for buying houses, cars, house improvements and on and on.

So this could as I see it, very well work as a stimulus to the economy outside the mega cooperations.

surely a licensing fee would be a lot less

A license fee for using a magnet to hold something? Really?
How is this any different than using refrigerator magnets?

It’s also wrong in its trolling, because having used up to 75% you obviously didn’t overbuy.
You would never want to go completely full, so you always need to buy a bit bigger than you actually plan to use.

Is this really a FAFO moment for Trump? Is it beginning to dawn on him what he has started?
None of these problems existed before Trump became president!

Trump claimed trade wars are easy to win, but joke’s on him, because trade wars have no winners, and more likely than not USA will be the biggest loser in Trump’s moronic trade wars.

It is not “normal” to run a 4 year money loser and claiming to be worth billions.

Maybe not, but it is absolutely normal to lose money for years to make a profit later.
Microsoft was ready to lose money on Xbox for 10 years to take a place in the console market. And it’s a very profitable market for them now.
Microsoft tried some of the same with Windows Phone, where they invested billions for years before they gave up.

One of the most hyped AI companies is probably OpenAI, and they absolutely have products that makes them money. They are not profitable yet.
But among the bigger stock holders are Nvidia and Microsoft, and if OpenAI goes under, they will absolutely survive just fine. But I don’t think they will.
OpenAI is owned by companies that know how to make money, and apparently OpenAI knows how to do it too, and has been quicker to make money on for instance ChatGPT than Google was on making money on YouTube.

Some AI companies will go down, that’s the nature of being in a cutting edge business, and it’s the nature of competition. But I think the AI business will mature and stabilize like most businesses have, not burst like a bubble.

Nobody called it a bubble when the smartphone market exploded. Because everybody could see the value of the product, although it’s not quite the same, many companies have been forced out of the smartphone market due to competition. I think the AI market will be mostly similar.

I think VW had it right when you had to do it manually. But I’m not sure that’s still the case.

For me that’s no different than anything else Stelantis.

If functionality can be restore, the car was not bricked.

Bricked means beyond repair. The device is as worthless as a brick because it can’t be repaired, and it has absolutely zero functionality.

So yes it must be comforting for people to know that they can have their car working again.

If it doesn’t pop, it’s not really a bubble, it just looks like it.

It’s perfectly normal for a growth business to invest more than they make, I didn’t say they were profitable yet, but they are making money.

Especially your first paragraph is probably spot on. Short attention span.

I don’t think it’s a bubble, first there is absolutely zero comparison to the housing bubble, which was a financial problem that caused housing prices to inflate, while the inherent value of housing stayed the same. This alleged AI bubble is mostly driven by companies that have lots of money, so it is not credit based, and there are underlying products that actually have increasing value.

The better comparison would be the dot com bubble, which was dominated by companies that didn’t even have a product and didn’t make any money. The frenzy is similar, but the fundamentals are different.

AI investments may cool down because obviously there is a frantic race in an attempt to get ahead.
But the reason I don’t think the AI bubble will burst is because it is driven by companies that actually make money.
They may lose money investing too heavily in this, but the most companies investing in this can afford it.

I think the most AI bubbly company isn’t even in the diagram, because that is Tesla. Tesla might actually go down, because Musk is insane.

But in general if it is a bubble, it is a very very long one, Nvidia value has been exploding since 2016 based on their AI product dominance. If this is a bubble, I think it will go down in history as the longest living bubble ever.

Is the market frantic? Yes absolutely.
Is the value of some AI companies extremely high? Yes absolutely.
Is it a bubble that will burst? No if it’s a bubble, this one will be more like deflating to a less frantic level, because ALL the main players have the money to weather losses.
And the main AI companies have actual products that make money for them rolled out already. So it is not like the dot com bubble.

For any other country, buying a company to gain the patents and knowledge of that company is completely normal and business as usual. But for some reason China isn’t even allowed to buy knowledge, and when they do they are still accused of stealing it!?!?

Most likely he will back down, but it’s false to claim everybody “knows”.
Because there is a level of uncertainty, and even if he does, it shows negotiations are not going smoothly.
Trump is creating disruptions in the American market, and disruptions are harmful, especially they are extremely harmful to investments.
So whether he TACO out or not doesn’t really matter for the harm he is doing in the meantime.

just another round of market manipulation.
FTFY:
another round of market disruption.

Stupid article by people who can’t do percentages.
Downvoted for false info.

with unit pricing expected to range between $180 and $200. In contrast, Qualcomm’s latest premium SoC reportedly costs smartphone manufacturers as much as $280

How is 180 less than half of 280? The saving is “only” 36%.
What is actually the case is that the Qualcomm is 55% more expensive, which is a huge difference from the claim of the headline.
MediaTek being 55% cheaper would be: $280 -55% = $126.

That’s a weird thing to say, since top Mediatek for a couple of recent generations were actually more powerful than top Qualcomm, including on graphics.
Qualcomm typically has an edge on efficiency, but it’s only an edge, not like they are in different leagues, and MediaTek is absolutely a great option if you want a high end very powerful phone.
IMO it’s by far the best (only really good) place to save cost if you want to make a flagship killer, and at half the price it ought to be a no-brainer.

HOWEVER!
After actually reading the article:

with unit pricing expected to range between $180 and $200. In contrast, Qualcomm’s latest premium SoC reportedly costs smartphone manufacturers as much as $280

The 180-200 price is repeated in the table shown. <so how is 180 less than half of 280?
Seems to me more like a saving of 36%.