Yeah i think technicaly it could work. But I actually think that is a terrible idea. Humans have a lot less self control then we think. This will lead to many false alarms.
Oh come on, you really think thats their big plan? Announcing the scanning SW in public and then abuse it? If they want to to illegal spying they do it right. And without a second Snowden you will not hear about it.
The point is that SO is actually less about the person asking a question. That is only one person.
But people look for already asked questions by searching for them. And I don't think that there are many things that are more frustrating, then finding a questions that describes your problem X perfectly and it has only answers to Y.
Today the problem is less the lack of ressources, but that we destroy the eco-system with our current technology. We can not just use another technologie to exploit a different kind of ressource. Instead we need a technology that has less consequences or even one that undoes the damage we already made.
Fossile oil reserves where not developed around 1800. They developed over millions of years. And actually they were already used in the middle east, china and myanmar way before europeans&americans started to use them to replace the shrinking and therefore more expensive supply of whale oil.
IMO the usage of petroleum was fueled(no pun intended) by the market and the rising price of whale blubber. It could have been used way earlier but was not lucrative.
Sadly the technologies that destroy our environment are still more lucrative then existing solutions that could solve our problem. That is especially if you look at the investments that are still made in this sector. We have the technologies to solve our problems, they are called renewable energies.
The problem is that we need a technology that takes over the market share that is currently taken by technologies that damage the environment. But that is very hard, as it would need to be more lucrative.
Just having the technology does not help, if people still use the damaging technologys. Cause they alone are enough to reach certain tipping points. And after those, no technology can save us even if it would undo damage that we caused earlier.
Exciting news! Hopefully thats the first no tracking search engine that meets my requirements.
It seems as Brave Search could be the first non-tracking search engine that combines satisfying search results with good presentation.
I was never completly happy with DuckDuckGo, probably they use(despite others) search results of Bing. DuckDuck together with Startpage(google results but bad presentation) works for me but is unconvinient.
Yes they are the successor. But does that matter? The CDU was founded mainly by previous members of the Zentrum party. That was the party that voted with the NSDAP for the "Ermächtigungsgesetz" that gave Hitler the power over germany.
But the party changed over time and today it doesnt matter anymore. Same goes for die Linke in my opinion. The only thing that should count, are the targets of a party.
Yes and the reason why we aren't ranked higher is that the press was not properly protected by police at right wing and anti-corona-measure protests.
We were ranked at place 11 but were downranked cause of continous attacks on journalists.[1] But the people wo did this are those who cry loudly: "We have no freedom of speech". I even read in this thread "Germany is a totalitarian dystopia with no free speech"
Those people are so far away from reality. I am concerned they might never find back.
It is a renowned institute but I am not sure if 1283 people are enough for being representative. But most importantly you have to read the question carefully. It includes people not stating a controversial opinion to avoid an argument. Therefore the poll is vulnerable for misterpretation.
Turley is extremly biased and the whole article is ridiculous.
Even the article that he cites is from "die Welt" which itself is a pretty biased right conservative medium.
I think it is way more problematic how he intentionally misinterprets a survey of 1283 people to spread the constructs in his head.
Turleys article is shallow and full of false assumptions.
He cites one Survey of 1283 people and thinks he can deduce the consequences of european hate-speech-laws from that. Despite the fact that I doubt that this small poll is representative, his assumptions are completly wrong.
What the by him cited article implies is that people are carefull with their opinion not because of laws but because of potential backslash from other people. Many people avoid controverse opinions because they want to avoid arguments. And the way the german question is written, this kind of avoidance is included. This has nothing to do with german laws.
If I read "I have long been a critic of the German laws prohibiting certain symbols and phrases" I am disgusted. Prohibiting the Swastika is part of historical responsibility we have as a society. That has nothing to do with free speech and the fact that turley implies that says alot about his mindset.
Luckily saying "Put all Jews in gas chambers" is not considered free speech here. We have to prevent on all means that history repeats itself. And the paradox of intolerance[1] is an important part of that.
I do not want to discuss a higher incidence of HIV in the group of gay males compared to the whole population. That is a fact that is attributable to the fact that unprotected anal sex comes with a higher infection risk then unprotected vaginal sex.
But the OP claimes that "specifically [young] gay males think as long as they are safe from HIV, they are safe enough." That may be the result of unfortunate wording.
But if not it is an allegation that the OP will have a very hard time to prove.