Perhaps, but in the same breath, from the limited things I've seen and heard, they're extremely reluctant to take any risk with these types of funding schemes when disbursing, so unless it's tried and tested it's not getting off the ground i.e. it's unlikely to lead anywhere considering current state of market.
I mean we can barely get EU to host with EU providers. Nevermind something so speculative.
There's also thresholds where a simple tap of a card won't work and you need to insert the chip, not the case with the phone. Phone is much much easier, don't even have to open the wallet app, just unlock the phone with your fingerprint and tap.
Again, at this point, they're taking things too far,age gates shouldn't need to be an impenetrable fortress (notwithstanding the question of whether they should exist in the first place).
It should simply be the adult account on the device is notified if the device is rooted, effectively no longer in child mode. Go crazy with the warnings on both devices if you want as they've opted in at that point.
This quite literally validates those "tinhat conspiracy" folks, honestly the EU are not doing us or themselves any favours here. If it is intended to replace cash then it should function like cash. This limitation is draconian.
There is one thing after the next, under Von der Leyen and Metsola, its ridiculous.
There is always imperfect information, there is no such thing as a perfect market and as a result regulation will always be needed to curb the excesses such as monopoly. Even if we had perfect information, humans remain irrational. This is a simple fact of life and the universe.
I agree with you however I think even then you're still giving our brains too much credit. The speed definitely comes from that processing being "in silicon".
Your ball throwing example however will be handled by really small and really fast "fine tuned agents" dedicated to catching that ball. Eyes to motor neuron system. There are the illusion of free will experiments that demonstrate your brain only rationalises and explains whatever activity took place after the fact (It's explanation may even be entirely wrong).
This is absolutely true. Perhaps Microsoft have painted themselves into a corner, their catch-all marketing racking up significant tech debt. But in the same breath I honestly can't see what the value proposition would be for their office applications without it.
Regarding your first paragraph, if you're curious, I work for a multinational where we deal with company names, this is kept uniformly in uppercase in our internal system, globally there's too many variations and it gets visually messy (such as GmbH, there's also user errors to consider). However emailing external third parties, it looks a little unprofessional sending this information ALL IN CAPS.
New outlook is quite honestly a joke. I tried to like it but went back to the old outlook as crucial features were missing. Simple things such as shift+f3 to change case to upper/lower/sentence case. This I believe stems from spell check being missing, another big issue for those with custom dictionaries. Poorly implemented template and template file management, I could go on...
If I intended on using a basic email editor, I would not have installed Outlook on my PC, I think the product manager or whoever is in charge of it's direction completely misunderstands the purpose/use-case of their programs.
You're correct on me posting the wrong link sorry. Thank you for the detailed reply.
But I disagree slightly with your take on the secrecy thing. Many of those discussions are diplomatic or internal administration. It is normal for these things to be kept private even in domestic governments. As it can put the state at a disadvantage to have the matters disclosed publicly (the state acts on behalf of the people).
There seems to definitely be shortcomings in transparency however on legislative debates like you mention, and should atleast have a period of public consultation on all of them. Also the presidency sets the talking points and just ignore legislative proposals they don't like.
It is democratic but yes I 100% agree it's entirely open for abuse, and I'm sadly sure is being abused. Separately and unrelated, imo lobbyists should not feature on the system at all.
Legislative matters are supposedly not secret and appointments can be (whether it's wrong or right is a bit grey imo, and that isn't a good thing).
1. The European Council
The European Council primarily decisions by consensus. However, where the EU treaties specify a formal vote, certain appointments allow for or require a secret ballot.
When it is used: Secret votes are strictly reserved for specific appointments or personnel decisions, most notably the election of the President of the European Council.
Legal Basis: Article 4(4) of the Rules of Procedure of the European Council states that a secret ballot shall be held if requested by any member of the European Council supported by a simple majority.
2. The Council of the European Union
Because the Council of the European Union acts as a legislative body, its operations are bound by strict transparency requirements under the Treaty of Lisbon.
Legislative Debates: When the Council deliberates or votes on a draft legislative act, the meeting must be public, and voting records are made visible. Secret votes are prohibited for legislative matters.
Non-Legislative/Administrative Matters: Secret ballots are permitted only for specific appointments or selections to individual positions (such as nominating members of the European Central Bank Executive Board or Court of Auditors) if a member state requests it and the decision receives majority support to proceed secretly.
And dog welfare being across borders make sense legally (single market) and ethically.
If it's not in the EU parliaments jurisdiction, it's in the EU council's. As a rule, all members states have to be democratic and you can simply vote out your EU council member i.e. your head of state. It is democratic.
I often won't look at it's route. If it seems like something's wrong along the way of course I'll double check.
Those folk driving off bridges and into ravines is scary as hell, it implies there's people driving around that don't look further than their car bonnet whilst driving (-+5 metres).
I suspect you're missing the entire point of my statement however, I also suspect your mother accessing a recovery boot mode intentionally is not on your list of concerns, if you're infantilizing her use to such an extent.
(Well given the limited amount of things we can deduce from a name)