Pay more

I don't understand why you think it should be more expensive if it's locally made.

?? They are willing to pay for a domestic service, presumably to people doing it domestically, just not more than what they're currently paying to non-domestic people. I'm not sure how you are reading this.

...And from that, you assume the 83% are all paying customers?

No, you are assuming they are not.

"83% want to reduce their dependence" does mean that they are dependent on American systems. And half are ready to pay more than they already are. That is, in fact, what the whole article is about. People who use those systems.

What do you think "pay MORE" means? More than what?

Somehow you're introducing the notion that, what, they're all pirating it? You're just making up nonsense.

It literally says "83% want an alternative, and 1 in 2 are ready to pay more" . You're the one making shit up about people not paying at all for no reason.

Are you an LLM? Is that what's happening?

Dude, look around you. Everyone's telling you that you're reading this wrong.

Those 33% do want to pay for it. Just NOT MORE. But they do want to pay. Why do you keep saying they don't want to pay for it when the text says 83% are ready to pay for it? And somehow you still insist that it's everyone else who's wrong.

Here:

83% want a domestic alternative, one in two (50%) would pay more for it. 83-50=33. 33% is one third.

"…So, a full third want a domestic alternative, but not to pay for it?".

Those two statements are contradictory.

Then, you slide in with "I don’t understand why you think it should be more expensive if it’s locally made.", and I genuinely don't know where you got that from.

You literally said it was "worse" that they're willing to pay, but not more, for a local version?? That is a judgement call you made about the people's answer, those fabulous 33%, the weirdos who "can't be bothered enough to be willing to pay for it." If "not paying more" is worse, then how are you not, in fact, saying that they should be paying more??

Well, my French may be exceedingly rusty, but the thing I'd read here is that "surcout", "plus cher", and "basculer vers un fournisseur" all refer to the 49% who would pay. The 83% response is to the question about the EU.

I still don't understand what you're reading wrong here. 100% of the people they asked are paying something, they're all using the EU's services, which is currently not deGAAFed enough. 49 of them are ready to pay more if the EU goes local. The other 51 are not ready to pay more for the EU services they already pay. Everyone has a fournisseur / provider, everyone uses EU services, everyone pays for them. 83% of all the people they asked think it should be local, and 49% of all the same people would pay more to make it happen.

Does it help in any way if I point out that there was a stink up not long ago about French health services storing data on Microsoft clouds? About the DGSI (national security stuff) having a contract with Palantir ? (which they dropped fortunately) Google, Microsoft, Amazon, are everywhere, in France, in the EU - in things that we pay for right now, through taxes for France and for the EU, and then there's the other stuff like Internet providers that we individually pay for, some of whom do or did use stuff like Amazon's services. And the general sentiment is that they should fuck off, and half of the people would be willing to pay more. This is what it's about.

Un Français sur deux serait prêt à payer plus cher pour une alternative souveraine

près d’un Français sur deux se dit désormais prêt à payer un peu plus cher

83% des Français pensent que l’UE devrait réduire ses dépendances numériques vis-à-vis des pays tiers

le marché mondial du cloud reste très largement dominé par des acteurs américains : AWS, Microsoft Azure et Google Cloud en tête

49% des sondés se déclarent prêts à basculer vers un fournisseur de services numériques basé en Europe, même si cela coûte un peu plus cher

Nuance à ne pas effacer : le sondage précise que le surcoût envisagé reste léger, pas un chèque en blanc, et il s’agit d’une intention déclarée, pas forcément d’un comportement d’achat. C’est quand même le genre de chiffre que les institutions européennes vont citer dans leurs discours pendant la prochaine décennie.

By the way, "basculer vers un fournisseur" does explicitly mean they currently pay for something, but that they're ready to move to something else. And "surcout" does explicitly mean an increase of cost compared to the cost they currently pay. And so does "payer plus cher" (the "pay MORE" that I've been underlining for you over and over since the start).

I don't understand how you could possibly be dumb enough to read this any other way.

I don't know what the fuck you think you're trying to do here.

The title is "one in two would pay MORE" and "83% want an alternative."

No one is saying that the 33% difference don't want to pay. You are claiming that. You prove it.

but aren't willing to pay to get it.

No, you are reading that wrong.

My exposure to autistic people has been very limited.

Autism is a much larger spectrum than you might have been led to believe from popular media depiction and social stigma, and you probably have met a few people in your life who had some degree of autism but you thought "they seem normal?"

Was this war about profit? I think you will find most wars aren't.

I feel like you're forgetting about Russia. Russia started the war for profit, Ukraine fights back for survival. Most wars are, in fact, started for profit - for one side anyway.

Well yes. As opposed to what? No one is starting a war in another country for anything else. That's the thing, you say it's a war for survival, but that's one side of it. The other is, indeed, in it for the profit. Border war is profit, even most of the times when one side says it's for their security. Random land grab is profit. Religion, ethnic cleansing, is profit by influence - some will believe in it, but the ones in power usually don't - they just want the thing that's over there and they don't want others to control it. There are revolutions and wars of independence where people will fight back to free themselves from oppression in their own land, but historically, those are the minorities.

And no one starts a war because "somebody over there is being insane on their people or others and needs to be removed from power". Not now, not historically.

Ennigaldi-Nanna lived in the mid 6th c. BCE, she was the daughter of Nabonidus, last king of the Neo-Babylonian empire just before Cyrus steamrolled through the whole place. She was the high priestess of Ur - and the first museum curator in History. Her dad, like many other kings between Sumer and Babylon, went around rebuilding temples that were up to 1500 years old in his time, but he picked up more stuff to bring back home.

Ennigaldi-Nanna built herself a special room with shelves where she lined up objects that were dated between 1400 and 2000 BCE, having them cleaned and restored, and she placed clay tablets next to them to explain what they were, where they came from, who made them. In three languages. In a room open to the public.

It's believed that she was present on sites when those objects were picked up. Some of those were from Ur, the city of her temple - her position as high priestess in that temple had been abandonned for a few hundred years before her temple was restored (because her dad was a big fan of the Moon god Nanna and this was his main temple for over a thousand years), so she may have just needed to look around and pick a shovel and a good brush. Nabonidus is also considered "the first serious archaeologist", antiquarian and antique restorer.

Some of the artifacts from Sumer and Babylon that are most famous today, oldest and best preserved, come from that museum. We found a 2500 year old museum, and we put it in a museum.

Corruption.

100% garanteed Bardella and the whole party do Nazi salutes between themselves. Just never in public - those who do get kicked out. The US far right simply tested the boundary long enough to realize that no one will do shit about any of it - but Europe still pushes back when we see it.

Don't care, still better than the ads.

I'll sit for 2 minutes in front of a black screen and it'll still be better than 45 seconds of ads.

According to the other article posted in another response, it's as easy as sending an army of policemen to beat up the workers because the company owns the city.

That's what natural selection is. We focus on those that survived because they developed resistance to something, but it has always meant that everybody else died and the species as a whole has moved forward.

AIPAC doesn't leave a lot of names available.