Do you not consider Roman Catholicism to be part of the European heritage? I sure do.
A lot of Latino Americans and indigenous people are Roman Catholics, so part of European heritage.
I don't understand why you mention "never had blood .. ties" when at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48842245 you reject the relevancy of blood ties. Wouldn't your argument make more sense as just "never had ethnic ties with Europe.
As a reminder, Obama, African-American son of a white woman, once visited Moneygall, where an Irish ancestor lived, and said "My name is Barack Obama, of the Moneygall Obamas."
Lastly, I see you switched from "blood or ethic ties" to "heritage". Could you elaborate on what that means? Must I be Greek inherit some of the intellectual heritage of Ancient Greece? How is my claim to the traditional European liberal arts education heritage any stronger or weaker than that of W. E. B. Du Bois?
The statistics don't work out that way. Many African Americans have blood or ethnic ties with Europe, but following a long racist tradition, "European" is interpreted as "effectively only European ancestry", while mixed populations were usually described by omitting the European components. It wasn't until 2000 that the US Census even allowed identifying as multiracial.
For example, Barack Obama, the first African American to serve as president, is the son of Stanley Ann Dunham, "of predominantly English ancestry, with small amounts of Scottish, Welsh, Irish, German and Swiss-German" - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ann_Dunham
Frederick Douglass' father was a white man.
You see the same with some Native Americans. Jim Thorpe's grandfather was Irish.
Thus, while "the plurality of whom either have indigenous or African ethnic origins" is true, the plurality also have European blood and ethnic ties.
The Spaniards entered states like California and Texas some 500 years ago, intermarried, and brought Spanish practices and heritage with them, including Roman Catholicism. I find it very odd to say that indigenous and Latin American populations have a low rate of European heritage when many of them are practicing Catholics.
The title refers to the secrecy related to its founding, not any present-day secrecy. From the text:
> "It started as sort of secret colony," said Deborah-Jean Hoffman, a board member at the New Sweden Centre, which promotes the Delaware Valley's colonial history. "The Swedes weren't flag-planting like the French or the Spanish. The idea was to create an under-the-radar colony where the Dutch wouldn't see them."
When someone says "China blew up its own future" as at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47850045 and presents an argument based on decreasing birth rates as a consequence of previous policies, of course that's a prediction about the future written in past perfect tense.
When The Atlantic has an article with subtitle "How X blew up its own platform with a new location feature", linked at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46042350 , that's again a prediction about the future written in past perfect tense.
When The Verge writes "A judge just blew up Apple’s control of the App Store", linked at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43851672, that's yet another prediction about the future written in the past perfect tense -- and it's specifically a prediction about the consequences of a court decision!
Nor, clearly, does making the "blew up" claim necessarily mean those stated claims are inevitable.
You are of course free to object that such claims are inappropriate unless proven in a court of law or by the fullness of time, but I find that sort of highly non-standard interpretation both contrary to easily found existing practice, and tiresome quibbling.
Most countries in North and South America have unconditional birthright citizenship for persons born in the country.
I take it you are not British? The British Empire had birthright citizenship, and up until 1948 (except for Ireland) citizens of all Commonwealth countries were simply British subjects.
Afterward it was possible to be, for example, a Canadian citizen, but it was still the case that "Prior to the [the British Nationality Act 1981] coming into force, any person born in the United Kingdom or a colony (with limited exceptions such as children of diplomats and enemy aliens) was entitled to [Citizenship of the United Kingdom and Colonies] status" - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Nationality_Act_1981
I don't know what your point is. There is no need for the US Supreme Court, in its decision to endow the President with "unitary executive" power, to elaborate all of the things they blew up to get there.
It's not like West Virginia v. EPA elaborated all the emissions regulations which were blown up by the "major questions doctrine."
I think "noyb will also file a lawsuit in the coming weeks", from the person/group who brought us Shrems I and Shrems II, counts enough as "Shrems III could be in the works". Don't you?
The linked article does not present their legal analysis and call for action as established fact.
For the skimmer, the advocacy group was founded by Maximilian Schrems, whose legal cases first got the European Court of Justice to overturn the International Safe Harbor Privacy Principles (which described how a US company could legally store private data on EU citizens), and then got the ECJ to overturn EU–US Privacy Shield, which replaced the Safe Harbor principles.
These decisions are known as Schrems I and Schrems II after the founder of this advocacy group.
The newest version of that data transfer framework is called the Trans-Atlantic Data Privacy Framework. The European Commission deemed it sufficient, in no small part because they considered it (and more specifically the Data Protection Review Court, an extrajudicial executive branch tribunal) sufficiently independent of the president.
However, in January 2025, Trump fired the Democrat members of the review court, leaving it unable to reach quorum to make decisions, which highlighted it wasn't all that independent. Now it's clearly not independent.
I don't see how a Schrems III is not in the works.
"Iceland doesn’t have that much excess power generation. Already our power companies have to occasionally limit power delivery to heavy users.
Increasing power generation that much requires tough choices: we’d have to ruin the environment some way. We just don’t have that many locations left for hydroelectric or geothermal power plants. Most locations that remain are popular tourist sites – destroying them would be bad for the economy – important ecosystems, or would require improvements to the grid that nobody seems to be willing to pay for. Even if we shut down some of the aluminium smelters, reusing that power elsewhere would be problematic. The Kárahnjúkar power plant is in the middle of nowhere and was purpose-built to serve the aluminium industry. When it generates excess power – which happens – that power is usually wasted because the grid can’t shift it from the region where most of the smelting takes place to the regions that have most of the population.
However, data centres in Iceland are both located near populated areas and are almost exclusively used for “AI” or crypto. You can’t buy regular hosting in these centres for love or money. If you buy hosting in Iceland, odds are that the rack is in a building in Reykjavík somewhere, not in a data centre
And those data centres use more power than Icelandic households combined.
Instead of putting limits to “AI” and cryptocoin mining, the official plan is currently to destroy big parts of places like Þjórsárdalur valley, one of the most green and vibrant ecosystems in Iceland."
In the 1990s he said he was very pro-choice. That's changed.
In some more fundamental sense, you are right - he hasn't changed that much. Doonesbury, 16 September 1987 characterized him as "I'm just a billionaire developer exercising trial balloons! If I were running [for President] though, it'd be as an original, as a beloved archetype - the American Landlord!" https://readingdoonesbury.com/2018/06/01/selling-reagan-to-b...
You couldn't have read Doonesbury at the time without knowing that a lot of people didn't like Trump, but did things for him because of his money.
Certainly some people did like him. Some of those trial balloons went over really well with racists, like the malicious Central Park 5 ad. ("even a fool can become a multi-millionaire." and 'Trump "was the fire starter" in 1989, as "common citizens were being manipulated and swayed into believing that we were guilty."' - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_Park_jogger_case ).
As one of the examples of how we know a lot of people didn't like the short fingered vulgarian, here's a 50 second piece featured in "Alive from Off Center" in 1991, starting at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HY7pKQ-Imco&t=559 and ending with the assertion that names like Donald Trump ("a man who can buy his cake and eat it too") "are just fancy names for irrelevance".
IMO what changed is the economic insecurity as the New Deal and Great Society were torn down from the rise of neoliberal thought in the 1970s, funded by rich reactionaries who want to return to a pre-New Deal America, and embraced by both major parties who are more beholden to rich donors than the electorate. As President Lyndon B. Johnson once said, "If you can convince the lowest white man he's better than the best colored man, he won't notice you're picking his pocket. Hell, give him somebody to look down on, and he'll empty his pockets for you." That continues to be used to redirect anger towards minorities, instead of at the rich people, and Trump, as you point out, has for decades been a master at picking that pocket.
I think it left out an even more important part - this is a temporary change for one year (until 1 July 2028), after which normal customs duties will apply for all products, with no de minimus exception. https://taxation-customs.ec.europa.eu/news/guidance-and-lega... .
Is something bad if it kills a hobby? Like, getting glow fuel now for an R/C plane is pretty hard because shipping requires ground transport and possible hazmat fees, while it used to be you could easily get a bottle from a local hobby store .. which have mostly died off due to people buying things more cheaply online. If that's bad, what should we do?
Or do we realize that hobbies shift, and that perhaps having battery-powered R/C planes is an acceptable substitute, and let the glow plug hobby die out?
And do we apply that more broadly to say that if a 4.60€ USB cable is too much for a hobby, then perhaps switching to another related hobby would be a okay substitute?
Sure, but this picture is imaginary anyway, so why does that matter?
Setting aside the motion blur in the lane markings(?!), the 3-lane highway on the left turns into a 4-lane highway in front of the car, then splits into two with an island in the middle? Is that supposed to be a breakdown lane on the left? The truck on the left of the three is either going very slowly, or is about to crash. Tracing the truck shadows from the corners shows the sun is roughly behind the "pt" of "Optimized". And what are those intermittent lane markers with the very short gap even supposed to be? I think the are supposed to be 15 feet long with 25 foot gaps.
And the three lanes on the left highway are too narrow.
Like how the parents didn't teach legally required topics, and like how the judge supposedly ruled based on the kid's dislike of funk and sertanejo was a claim from the family, and apparently not based on the ruling.
My main objection was the near uniformity of all reporting on the topic, all seemingly derived from one English publication, with no links to Brazilian sources nor links to court documents - if available. As I demonstrated, these additional sources were not hard to find.
Nice tactical skepticism to point to a minor part of my statement as if that were the totality of it.
Are the sites which are promoting this article "reliable" and "trustworthy"? Why are they omitting facts like how the decision for 10 days of semi-open jail was rescinded?
I do not understand how you can call this decision "authoritarianism", except if you have the extreme belief that any sort of compulsory education, or state control of educational standards which can override the parents, to be authoritarian.
Since you do not, what actually is authoritarian here?
We have explicit ideological indoctrination all the time. In the US we were indoctrinated into US ideology, which is why we talk about "our founding fathers", while the English are indoctrinated to be subjects of His/Her majesty.
It's only when people don't like something that they call it "explicit ideological indoctrination".
Do you think requiring kids to have age appropriate sexual education to be an explicit ideological indoctrination? Do you think that requirement is authoritarian?
If the parents refuse to follow the law, as the case here, should they not be punished by the court?
To put it in other words, there's no new journalism going on. This has the hallmarks of a US-centered rage-bait echo chamber.
No one links to the Brazilian press coverage, which was not hard to find. No one links to the court documents (I'm assuming it's public). What little supporting evidence they gave comes from the statements from the family/defense.
Can you tell me what "tolerance and diversity" means, in regards to the judgement? Does that phrase come from the judge, from the law, or from the parents? It seems perfectly chosen to cause a knee-jerk reaction from anyone who hates DEI. But what does it mean in a Brazilian context and in the context of this court case?
Your viewpoint seems to be that we should treat children as property of their parents, and only parents can decide what their kids may learn. You seem to be against compulsory education of any sort, and believe that the state should be prohibited from enforcing any educational standards which are contrary to the wishes of the parents.
A lot of Latino Americans and indigenous people are Roman Catholics, so part of European heritage.
I don't understand why you mention "never had blood .. ties" when at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48842245 you reject the relevancy of blood ties. Wouldn't your argument make more sense as just "never had ethnic ties with Europe.
As a reminder, Obama, African-American son of a white woman, once visited Moneygall, where an Irish ancestor lived, and said "My name is Barack Obama, of the Moneygall Obamas."
Lastly, I see you switched from "blood or ethic ties" to "heritage". Could you elaborate on what that means? Must I be Greek inherit some of the intellectual heritage of Ancient Greece? How is my claim to the traditional European liberal arts education heritage any stronger or weaker than that of W. E. B. Du Bois?