Technology

Want Windows 10 to run faster We've got help. Take a few minutes to try out these tips, and your machine will be zippier and less prone to performance and system issues.

1.Change your power settings

If you&re using Windows 10Power saver plan, you&re slowing down your PC. That plan reduces your PCperformance in order to save energy. (Even desktop PCs typically have a Power saver plan.) Changing your power plan from Power saver to High performance or Balanced will give you an instant performance boost.

To do it, launch Control Panel, then select Hardware and Sound > Power Options. You&ll typically see two options: Balanced (recommended) and Power saver. (Depending on your make and model, you might see other plans here as well, including some branded by the manufacturer.) To see the High performance setting, click the down arrow by Show additional plans.

French President Emmanuel Macron gave a speech at VivaTech in Paris, alternating between French and English. He defended a third way to regulate tech companies, which is different from the U.S. and from China.

Macron thinks Europe should have a say when it comes to regulation — and it shouldn&t be just about privacy. Of course, he defended GDPR and online privacy, but he also talked about taxes, cyberbullying, the protection of independent workers and more.

Yesterday, Macron hosted 50 tech CEOs to talk about leveraging tech for the common good, especially when it comes to education, labor and diversity. Microsoft CEO Satya Nadella talked about the event before Macron took the stage.

Macron first started with a few numbers on the French tech ecosystem. &I want to talk to the entire French ecosystem here today. What we&re all doing is essential for our country and the world,& he said.

Based on his numbers, startups raised $2.9 billion in France last year (€2.5 billion). Thatthree times as much as in 2015. He then listed some of the recent changes, from corporate taxes to Franceopen data policy and the French Tech Visa.

He didn&t have much to say about the tech industry in particular. You could feel that he has a lot on his plate right now and that tech is more or less an afterthought.

&France is changing like crazy. And that's why we can say that France is back,& he said in English to conclude the first part of his speech.

&My second message is for Africa because you decided to invite Africa to VivaTech this year,& he said.

Macron then announced that France is going to invest some public money in the most promising African startups. &For the past six months, the French Development Agency has worked hard on this,& he said. &And the French Development Agency is going to announce in the coming weeks a new specific program of €65 million [$76 million] in order to invest small amounts, €30,000 to €50,000 per startup.&

Michel Euler / AFP / Getty Images

A message to big tech companies

Finally, Macron talked about the Tech for Good Summit and tech regulation in general. &We&re currently experiencing a revolution. I truly believe in that revolution and our country believes in it too,& he said. &But you can&t deny that some people in our country and in the world fear change.&

&Tech companies haven&t always been exemplary. Some haven&t complied with taxation laws and it has fostered mistrust — even from French entrepreneurs.&

Macron then defended Franceproject to create a European tax on big tech companies. If the French Government can convince other European Governments, big tech companies would be taxed on local revenue in each European country. It could be a way to avoid tax optimization schemes. Smaller European countries with a lower corporate tax rate don&t seem convinced yet.

&I'm a big tech optimist and this country does believe in innovation,& he said. &But it's not enough — making money, creating jobs and making shareholders happy is great. Especially creating jobs as far as I'm concerned.&

Macron also criticized U.S. regulation on tech companies, saying that the U.S. Government is not doing enough when it comes to online harassment, taxes, labor and more.

He then criticized the Chinese model, saying that the Chinese Government is not doing enough when it comes to privacy, human rights and gender equality.

&What is at stake is how we build a European model reconciling innovation and common good,& he said. &We have to work together to build this common framework.&

After yesterdaycommitments, the French Government is going to track tech companies every six months to see if they actually implement what they promised when it comes to tech for good.

He also finished by saying that the Tech for Good Summit should become an annual initiative. Tech CEOs will be invited once again to the Élysée next year ahead of VivaTech.

Washington — as Washington does — is barreling towards a new reform plan designed to protect American innovation from overseas investors (which should really just be read as the Chinese these days). Earlier this week, congressional committees passed a measure designed to strengthen CFIUS, the Committee on Foreign Investment in the U.S., which we have written extensively about on TechCrunch. The bill would expand the powers of the committee to review transactions in more contexts, beyond its current mandate of looking only at changes in controlling interests.

Washington — as Washington does — has turned the debate, which was once deeply technical about the machinations of a mostly unknown government agency created during the Korean War, into a histrionic fight about the future of American innovation. Along the way, this classic DC dramatization threatens to rollback the robust market of Chinese venture capital flowing to Silicon Valley startups.

Limiting those flows of dollars to U.S.-based companies would be a tremendous mistake. Silicon Valley is the strongest innovation region in the world, and in no small part because of the robust venture capital dollars that fund risky startups to go big. While rules should be enacted to protect American intellectual property, Silicon Valley should be left alone to handle these problems in a more market-centric way.

Unfortunately, the histrionics of DC are already pushing this reform bill too far. To see this in action, letlook at this in-depth Politico article that has been making the rounds on Capitol Hill this week. Ittitle, &How China acquires ‘the crown jewels& of US technology& already gets at its conclusion, but it is the section on venture capital that left me stupefied. Take this quote:

One major concern among specialists like Ware is that Beijing officials could use early Chinese investments in next-generation technology to map the software the federal government and even the Defense Department may one day use — and perhaps even corrupt it in ways that would give China a window into sensitive U.S. information.

…

&Therea tremendous amount of intelligence value there,& Ware said. &All governments desire to know what other governments are doing. And knowing the technologies and how they work I think is a big part of that.&

Herethe thing — the American government buys a lot of its products right out in the open through the procurement process. It actively signals what it is looking to buy at trade shows and in keynotes to encourage industry to build products that solve its problems. There exists an entire class of DC consultant that will tell you what the government is looking to buy in one, five, and ten years down the line. None of this is secret, nor should it be.

Now, that isn&t to say there isn&t confidential information that can be exchanged during the procurement process with sensitive agencies like the Defense Department. Obviously, integrating software with their existing systems will reveal a lot about the architecture of American national security computing, and the government has an interest in preventing the spread of that information widely.

The solution in my mind is not to block the hundreds of millions of dollars of Chinese venture capital flowing into the Valley, but rather to empower national security agencies to only work with contractors with clean equity. For instance, if a Chinese investor owns 5% of a startup, then that startup could no longer be eligible for sensitive government contracts. Clear rules here empowers startup founders to decide whether the capital they take is worth the potential loss of any government contracts that they may become ineligible for. In other words, there is a clear market dynamic that allows participants to decide what the benefit of capital is compared to the risk of intellectual property theft.

The other concern from Washington is that Chinese venture capitalists will get access to technical information as part of their investment. Again from Politico:

But Bryan Ware, CEO of Haystax Technology, which works with law enforcement, defense and intelligence clients on securing their technologies, cast some doubt on the idea that the owners of tech startups would naturally refuse to share details of their technology with their investors: &If you&ve got a Chinese investor and thatthe lifeblood thatgoing to allow you to get your product out the door, or allow you to hire your next developer, telling them, ‘No, you can&t do that,& or, ‘No you shouldn&t do that,& while you have no other alternatives for financing — thatjust the nature of the dilemma.&

Waresolution to the dilemma is to just block the venture capital, thereby guaranteeing that the technology wouldn&t be built. You can&t steal intellectual property that hasn&t been invented!

Having worked in venture capital for a number of years, all I can say is that I have never seen venture capital investors ask for a level of technical information on an on-going basis that would be of any use in creating a competing engineering effort. The one time that most VCs even slightly care about the technical side of these businesses is during the due diligence process, when coding libraries need to be checked for copyright and some firms do further technical due diligence on the codebase to verify a teamcompetence.

The due diligence tasks can be solved through trusted third-party intermediaries, which frankly is what most firms already use for these processes (there aren&t a lot of investors who also happen to be coders anyway). Furthermore, lawyers already make it abundantly clear about what information an investor can access through an investment, and that language can be even more stringent in cases where a Chinese investor is involved.

Rather than a federal block on investment (or just the friction that an interagency process creates), let the market handle this particular problem. Let me be frank: any CEO of a startup that would give all of their technical information willy-nilly to their investors or customers — Chinese or otherwise — is so laughably incompetent about trade secrets that I can&t imagine their business surviving long-term anyway. Every startup has to make a call on when to share technical details and when not to (for instance, should you share your technical stack with a foreign corporation who wants to buy your product but needs to verify GDPR compliance), and getting sophisticated about sharing is critical for surviving in the cutthroat Silicon Valley market.

I am focused on minority-stake venture investments in Silicon Valley with this argument. Obviously, the rules can and should be very different in takeover situations, or in bankruptcies where the acquirer will receive the complete technical details of a company. I share the concerns of many analysts around how easy it can be to learn U.S. intellectual property, and I do believe the Chinese have a robust program to exploit the American economyopenness.

But in our rush to try to plug this flow of information, letnot lose sight of what actions are dangerous, and which are mutually beneficial for all parties involved. Venture capital gives companies the ability to hire workers (almost always domestically) and build products that can create impactful value for the economy. Washington — as Washington does — is taking these CFIUS reforms too far, and that risks undermining the very region that is the pinnacle of innovation in the world today.