I do not trust any "livability" statistic that lists Frankfurt as the most livable city in Germany.
Also, the chart does not give its selection criteria. Medium sized cities to cities on the smaller side are completely missing. I get not including towns, that would overwhelm the graph.
Then again, what even is a city, what sets it apart from a town? Different regions in Europe have vastly different definitions of that, with the UK's definition being particularly notable for how useless it is.
Some of the others high up on that list are equally absurd. OK, Zürich and Geneva are maybe nice if you are a millionaire, but for everyone else they are absolutely unaffordable.
Isn't it weird how all these stridently isolationist voices are taking Russian money? I just can't seem to connect this dot. Putin must really hate woke 🙃
They are. They are redfash. Talking about the horseshoe is one thing, but lets use the political Compass, they are peek Auth left and AFD is peek Auth right, they can work together to destroy democracy, wich is their long therm goal, or rather the goal of the Countries behind both parties. (Russia and China)
BSW is already evaluating their chances at a majority in coalition with AfD and who knows else, but certainly not with any leftist party. To consider them left is showing a fundamental lack of basic understanding of the German political landscape.
"When we evaluate how minors interact with the internet, for 90% of them it is their first way of getting to know about sexuality. From there, 50% of them recognise that they generate imitation and even with approaches that have domination as a central element. There is an enormous distortion in the way they are going to develop their sexuality", she stressed. [via DeepL, emphasis mine]
Hmmmmm, if only there was a way to educate minors about sexuality before they ultimately turn to internet because adults just ignore the problem.
Edit:
Incibe is also collaborating, which is checking that browsers "control access based on URLs" to prevent access to minors. Cabanillas said that "a black list" of browsers that do not do so will be created.
It's a miracle politicians aren't targeted by scammers more frequently, given they have no idea how internet works.
Hmmmmm, if only there was a way to educate minors about sexuality before they ultimately turn to internet because adults just ignore the problem.
Lots of children have access to the internet at a very young age. I guess what you're suggesting is sex education for 7-year-olds who might accidentally watch a video on the school yard, etc.? In fact, even 3-year-olds often use their parents' tablet to watch P*w P*trol and may wander off with it.
Whether a 7-year-old sees adult content accidentally, intentionally, because of peer pressure or any other reason, I still think age appropriate sex ed would be helpful. I acknowledge that minors do view inappropriate content and that it is generally unhealthy, but since it can happen, and does happen, a good approach would be to educate them preemptively.
For example, these guildelines for sex ed in EU, which caused some outrage in conservative circles a few years back, suggest that "sex in media and dealing with it" is a topic for 6 to 9-year-olds.
Of course you can't cover every outlier, but can you really stop 5th graders from sending weird shit to their friends because they're trying to be edgy?
Edit:
Another way to think about it:
Was the content accessed accidentally? If so, I would argue this law misses the point and better moderation would be more effective and also less, y'know, surveillance state adjacent
Was the content accessed intentionally? In this case, sex ed would probably help
It's pretty easy to install device-based "parental control"-types of software that can't be circumvented by a 3yo. That is definitely the parents' job.
uh yes, in fact, I think that would be very healthy. Not in a horrific South Park way, but in a "sometimes adults get naked because they like each other. And sometimes they film it. If someone shows you a video if that, it's okay to not want to watch it. It's okay to walk away. I someone pressures you to watch it, it's okay to tell an adult" way.
Look, I don't expect the back to be trivial to pop off and have a battery that I can yank out and replace within 5 seconds.
The need for high capacity batteries in phones pretty much necessitates thinner-walled (and therefore more easy to damage) batteries, and phones being all-screen pretty much necessitates phones being reasonably thin, so protective cases can be used without making the phones ridiculously cumbersome.
But if it does indeed require special tools, heatguns, and a skilled technician to do this, then I will be pissed off. There is zero reason Apple and the other industry shitheads can't design a phone with a battery that can be replaced without much chance of damage, or specialised tooling, by a normal person in under 10 minutes.
I'd also like to see them be forced to publish open schematics for their batteries so alternate companies can sell batteries if the OEM decides to be a shithead and charge you £160 for a new one.
Yeah, but Apple doesn’t charge labor for install of their batteries. You pay the same whether you do it yourself or bring it to an Apple Store. You only save money buying a third-party battery, which could be risky depending on the source.
Why would it be risky? I'm genuinely curious if you have any resources (other than Apple's, because they're obviously biased) that show that a third party battery is dangerous.
As far as I know, as long as the battery meets the dimensions, nominal volatage, chemistry/max charge rate/communication to the charging circuitry, discharge rate, it will function safely.
A battery is a battery is a battery. There's no concievable reason I can think of that would require you use an Apple branded battery. If you have evidence to the contrary I'd love to see it. Knowing proper battery safety is important if you mess with them in any capacity (which I do), so something I may not be aware of is important to know.
I mean a risky investment. Third-party batteries aren’t necessarily a safety risk. They could be, but more commonly they fail to have the same capacity or meet the same cycle count before failure as OEM, when created to match a proprietary form factor.
Third 0arty batteries have been easy to come by for any phone. The problem is that no third party sells ones that aren't complete shit. It's not the spec. It's that no good plant will make them and they bar the original plant from making extras to sell on their own. It shouldn't be borderline impossible for me to get an oem battery for my note 20 ultra.
The EU battery regulation requires all portable batteries to be removable and replaceable by the end user, starting 2026. So I guess that means no specialized tooling or repair training required, or the tools will have to be included with the phone
Unfortunately there are all kinds of caveats in the law. E.g. phone batteries over a certain capacity are exempt, you can be exempted if you provide a battery warranty of (iirc) 3 years, etc.
The UK using a bunch of documents, some of which are hundreds of years old and largely invalidated plus a bunch of unwritten arrangements to run a country is imo not ideal to say the least.
The real tragedy of it is this: if left-leaning parties still based their policies and marketing on original leftist theory/thought, all this would be an arguments for more people to vote left. Leftism was intended to help the disenfranchised, the workers, the poor. But for a good while, social democrats have tried to become popular with the educated, mid- to high-earning employees; to the point where they've mostly lost their original target group. Meanwhile, the far-right are among the few parties that actually try to speak (pander, imo) to the workers' interests. I really hope this can be a wake up call to political parties that lean left.
The plutocrats in media and politics have turned the young against their own interests and blamed everything on foreigners. It's classic divide and rule.
oh man, so little was achieved and now they are going to roll even that back. With Meloni, the RN in France and the CDU in Germany soon, we‘re completely fucked.
Nah she is just shilling for the high end car builders of Italy. I am fine with gas engines in cars. As long as the fuels are taxed at 5 euro per liter from 2030 adding a euro per liter per year. This goes for bio fuels too.
Hopefully the composition of the EP doesn't change enough in the future to repeal it. Here in Czechia the 'Motorist' party literally won two of our 20 seats.
Only if you're stupid about it and overuse them. My diesel VW runs on 100% biodiesel made from waste fat from chicken processing that would've gotten landfilled or something otherwise.
That's maybe fine for small scale usage. And even then I don't know if this is actually good. In any case your USA case won't scale well. I also don't know if it is even legal in my country.
I more meant large scale biofuel cultivation instead of food and nature. Cause then these companies will start eating up agro subsidies etc while keeping polluting cars on the road.
Not really. Biofuels are better than normal oil-derived fuels in terms of excess CO2 being dispersed in the environment, but they are still overall bad. They still release harmful particulates, they still release lots of NOx, and they are doubly bad in terms of land utilization, where you use huge swaths of land to cultivate plants with the sole goal of making them into fuel, rather than using that land to make food. Moreover, in a lot of places the cultivation of biofuel plants is being done by burning down forests and using that land for farming.
Biofuels are definitely better than normal petrol or diesel, but they are still overall bad, and I'd also argue that if we 100% switched to biofuels we'd have massive issues in terms of land, farming-related emissions, deforesting etc.
Depending on where biofuels are produced, the land use changes can make them worse for climate than fossil fuels. E.g. there was a recent study on US biofuels.
They still release harmful particulates, they still release lots of NOx
Frankly, those are just local problems and thus negligible (compared to greenhouse gas emissions).
they are doubly bad in terms of land utilization, where you use huge swaths of land to cultivate plants with the sole goal of making them into fuel, rather than using that land to make food. Moreover, in a lot of places the cultivation of biofuel plants is being done by burning down forests and using that land for farming.
So don't be stupid about it: make as much of them as you can out of waste fats and oils, then stop. Easy-peasy!
I'd also argue that if we 100% switched to biofuels we'd have massive issues in terms of land, farming-related emissions, deforesting etc.
This isn't wrong, but it's a massive strawman argument because doing that would be idiotic anyway. Biofuels are best used for filling the gaps left over after cities are fixed for bikeability and everything reasonable to electrify is electrified. (In other words, they're the answer to "but what about my [insert special-snowflake reason why I can't ride a damn bike/train/electric car]?" pearl-clutching.)
There is no one solution to sustainability, and pretending there is is a fallacy.
Frankly, those are just local problems and thus negligible (compared to greenhouse gas emissions).
Tell that to those dying because of those toxic emissions.
So don’t be stupid about it: make as much of them as you can out of waste fats and oils, then stop. Easy-peasy!
Sure, I agree, but if you want biofuels to be a significant enough part of the fuel mix, you need to make them at scale, which means you need incentives and by incentives I mean making them profitable enough so that it makes sense to invest billions into making them. At that point it becomes a race towards who can make the most at the lowest price to make the most money, and guess where that brings you. Otherwise, if you limit fuel crops, you'll get a very small production at a high price, since the scalability and possibility for growth will be limited.
Biofuels are best used for filling the gaps left over after cities are fixed for bikeability and everything reasonable to electrify is electrified
This is really what I'd like to see, using the massive taxes on fuels to finance sustainable mobility like trams, rail, bikes etc
Biofuels are great and all to fill that gap, but the moment they become more profitable or cheaper than fossil fuels, it's the moment you're gonna have massive problems.
That doesn't sound fair to the people that just can't afford a new car. The ban is about no new combustion cars getting into the market, not to say nobody can drive on from 2030 onwards.
I don't think a absolute ban is necessary, the phase out already started, most new car models are electric and most car companies for the mass market focus their future on electric. The ban as it currently is should do the job just fine. Most people will see the new electric cars as great, they save a lot of money and the tendency is towards even more.
I think investing in public transport is the most important, especially in Germany...
I'd love to see additional tax increases after a specific year. If you want to drive an Oldtimer or a gas powered supercar.. it should be expensive to operate.
But indeed only once full electrification has reached normal families.
Utterly insane take from him. Based on the strength of a single referendum that was likely influenced by a foreign power and carried out by some of the most determinedly incompetent leaders we've seen in a generation, we are to lose free trade, influence abroad, freedom to roam, consumer protections, and countless other benefits, to continue for the lifetime of an as yet unelected PM who has purged his party of anyone to the left of Barack Obama.
It should be enough to know that Russia prefers the current situation. I'd happily ditch the pound on that basis - it's not exactly as if sir Isaac has been running the mint lately.
Eh, why feed Reform or Conservatives any on-the-edge voters at this late an hour by making them fear a vote for Labour is a vote for more Brexit madness.
His statements are full of weasel words too, as have other party member’s statements. It’s not an insane take, just a “I don’t think we will” to avoid arming opponents with something to fearmonger with.
They need a term, and if they can change the perspective on EU membership and see polling supports rejoining (and they’ve the funds to pump into the obscene political advertising it’ll require to not get drowned out by Conservatives like before the referendum), they just might go for it in a second term.
She seemed to be a pretty reasonable politician to me. I think she'll do fine.
If Russia wants to improve their relations with the EU, then they might want to stop acting like an adversary.
Well, I don't have exactly the same opinion, another day we can discuss things like Pfizergate or why a Ukrainian is worth more to this commission than a Palestinian. But it is clear that it is much better that whatever the Kremlin considers acceptable, there is no debate on that
No idea what Kaja Kallas has to do with Pfizergate to be completely honest...
And Palestine & Israel are outside of Europe and both sides are a fucking mess that no one wants to deal with. I also find this whole Palestine argument idiotic and hypocritical when there's been war in the middle East for decades but suddenly everyone claims to care, now that Israel is involved.
I am not worried about the war in the Middle East, I am worried about the genocide in the Middle East, and I have been for decades, but if ethnic cleansing accelerates and yet my rulers applaud the genocidaires, they increase my protests, call me a hypocrite if you want, but it seems logical to me, if not it seems like a silly argument, a bit Nazi to me. Killing children indiscriminately has those things
Yeah, no. Calling me Nazi was the last straw, especially since you people are the ones who are teaming up with them, along with all the other hamas apologists. Have a good one.
Or yes, of course, my argument is stupid but saying that yours is a Nazi is the limit, that is, being against the mass murder of children is being an apolygist for Hamas. You seem eager to use logic.
Do you truly not see a difference between people arguing on the internet and an ideology that led to the wholesale slaughter of over 6 million civilians in extermination camps and another 9 to 14 million in Europe?
Calling someone a Nazi like that just dilutes the meaning of the term and shows how little you actually understand of the world.
He is telling me that being against the extermination of a people completely is being in favor of a terrorist group. If you think that does not fall within what it means to be a Nazi, you should review your history books
She wanted to be in the prime position of rebuilding the Tory party with her anti deep state, libertarian ass hattery. It has been obvious since she fucked up that the Tories were going to lose this election big time and she had one of the safest seats in the Country so she would have been confident she would have retained it.
The other option she would have wanted to achieve this aim, to be promoted to the House of Lords, is out as there is currently a queue of ex PMs as no Tory PM wanted to promote either Blair or Brown and its normally done in order.
Make no mistake, there is going to be a vicious fight of the direction the Tories take with this period of rebuilding.
You‘re right, I thought of Frankfurt am Main, but if it’s one of the others they could be livable. I only have been to Frankfurt am Main, and thats about the last place I would like to end up…
Europe
Top