>Anyone that advocates for increasing democracy generally
I find this take fascinating. In my model, increasing democracy correlates negatively with increasing long term planning, which only then wouldn’t be the case if our species was acting as a collective. Aggregating individual interests doesn’t magically lead to collective interests, just to the set of actions that map on individual demand. There are no real majorities in favor of the rather radical changes required to deal with the major problems of our time, the opposite is the case. People are willing to sacrifice the stability of the future in favor of their well being in the current legislative period, especially in countries with demographics skewed towards the elderly.
Democracy is not the solution unless a culture of sanity becomes prevalent, and that’s not on the horizon afaik.
Borrowing from a german idiom, the current model is “Eltern haften für ihre Kinder”, parents are liable for their children. What we need is the cultural change in the opposite direction, that being a heavy awareness of the fact that children are de facto liable for the actions of their parents.
Not just FAANG! Smaller vendors are a very significant threat vector, too, precisely because they are smaller. More owners with smaller margins, looking to squeeze the last bit of profit from the available data, thus entering grey areas almost by definition. Entire markets emerged just from this - afaik data brokers dont get access to, say, Apples Databases. At least FAANG has no real business incentive to sell the data directly.
>Why isn’t there more central EU coordination in case there actually will be a gas shortage, and we need to divide the gas?
Look no further than back to early Covid again, remember the disparities and chaos wrt borders? When people finally realized the potential gravity of the situation, politicians went full "each man to himself". Saying "we distribute gas elsewhere while you are freezing" isn't part of any regular elected politicians playbook, don't you think?
To your first question, I haven't met anyone who openly doubts he'll be fine personally. The situation is tense, but not meteor heading towards dortmund tense.
When covid hit, governments across Germany realized wait, we need videoconferencing for students!. For the prime ministers and their ministers of education, this meant they could either shine in comparison to the others, or the opposition would rip them apart in the next election.
Suddenly: money everywhere, zero red tape, worry about compliance later, get it done now.
So, if the political will is there, things are possible, and I can easily imagine our country going a lot harder than that if the danger was imminent enough.
This asserts that Russian aggression would transcend across NATO-borders. Is that a given?
1. Party Z invades Country U.
2. Continent C denounces the invasion of U and sanctions Z.
3. Z retaliates against C.
Does an act of retaliation (weaponizing Gas) from Z towards C count a declaration of war? Because if not, who exactly did Russia declare war on? Europe is many things, most prominently a continent and an idea. Was Germany declared war on? If not, is it reasonable to assume that Germany will be declared war on, and if so, which escalations from which involved party would lead to that?
(As always, I don't have strong opinions, just trying to make up my mind on what to expect/how to read the situation)
I smugly commented "Dang" on one of the status updates on twitter and spent time with my girlfriend. Now HN is up again and I spend time consuming meta-content regarding the outage (such as this thread).
can't speak for op because I don't know what layout his country has. For Germany, vim is not usable beyond basic movements, because for example [ and ] have no dedicated keys. Typing { } on the default german layout is an insult to the typer. I remember a vim-shortcut that would have required to press five keys at the same time.
My m1 air with us layout was shipped to Germany from Poland within one month, right after M1s were released. The US-layout is faily common in the EU among programmers etc.
I simply wasn't sure what to make of your comment. I probably shouldn't have assumed the worst in the face of ambiguity. The sentiment that science needs to be newsworthy wrt actual beliefs is omnipresent online, indicating (to me) a wrong canvas for your post.
>Roadworthiness or streetworthiness is a property or ability of a car, bus, truck or any kind of automobile to be in a suitable operating condition or meeting acceptable standards for safe driving and transport of people, baggage or cargo in roads or streets, being therefore street-legal.
I was told so from a credible source a couple years ago. What I can recall: legalisation would entail complex legal work, to a degree where that option is essentially not on the table. This is supported by the fact that "Legalisierung" is not part of the political language wrt topic, instead they refer to "Kontrollierte Abgabe" (~'controlled distribution').
The SPD brands itself as social, pro worker, peaceful, pragmatic and economically-focused all at the same time. They woo young voters, while their core clientel is >65. They actively make policy that works against the youth (serving their main voters, which are old), while presenting themselves as the good guys to the youth.
From my point of view, this makes them pure evil, much more so than the other parties. Yes, all the parties play the power game, but not all of them have the insane level of audacity that the SPD demonstrates again and again, in every election since I'm old enough to pay attention.
advocatus diaboli: the FDP has a long track record of advocating for legalisation and then voting against it or abstain in parliamentary elections. Their core clientel are small business owners and (other) anti-regulation folk, I strongly doubt that they lose big margins of voters due to their covid policy, maybe even the opposite is the case.
Point being: if the FDP is the reason to have faith in this, I'm not feeling much more confident than before.
I find this take fascinating. In my model, increasing democracy correlates negatively with increasing long term planning, which only then wouldn’t be the case if our species was acting as a collective. Aggregating individual interests doesn’t magically lead to collective interests, just to the set of actions that map on individual demand. There are no real majorities in favor of the rather radical changes required to deal with the major problems of our time, the opposite is the case. People are willing to sacrifice the stability of the future in favor of their well being in the current legislative period, especially in countries with demographics skewed towards the elderly.
Democracy is not the solution unless a culture of sanity becomes prevalent, and that’s not on the horizon afaik.
Borrowing from a german idiom, the current model is “Eltern haften für ihre Kinder”, parents are liable for their children. What we need is the cultural change in the opposite direction, that being a heavy awareness of the fact that children are de facto liable for the actions of their parents.