DasIch

Ursula Haverbeck is a nazi who denies the Holocaust and publicly lies about it. She was found guilty of incitement to hatred.

That is not a violation of freedom of speech. Lies are not covered by freedom of speech in Germany, they're not covered by freedom of speech in other countries either, even the US. In fact in most countries certain types of lies are illegal and fall under laws against fraud, libel or any number of things. Germany simply also covers incitement of hatred.

Additionally the first article of the German constitution and one of its fundamental principles is that human dignity shall be inviolable and that the state has a duty to respect and protect it. In my opinion ensuring the dignity of the vicitims of the holocaust is protected requires making sure that the state fights those that would deny the holocaust.

Germany has no thoughtcrime laws. No laws that would have an affect on free speech or assembly have been passed recently or are under discussion formally or informally.

Indeed precisely because opposition exists, this would be an incredibly stupid move likely to cause backlash.

The growth will of course slow down eventually as it has in Europe and the US. Slow growth might still be considered acceptable enough by most as to not be too much of a problem.

I don't see this happening in the immediate future, except maybe temporarily due to global economic issues. I'd expect it to take at least a decade until this becomes a problem and as the article shows, China is certainly planning that far ahead and is able to execute these plans.

Making and executing long term plans is definitely something China has a significant advantage in compared to the democracies in the west.

The CP clearly believes that as long as growth is maintained and people's lives improve, there won't be any political resistance. I'm inclined to agree.

We have a lot of examples of people protesting and calling for more representation when they're not doing well economically but do we have any examples, any evidence, any indication at all of people doing that when things go well economically?

The potential loss of quality of life associated with such resistance failing is massive and the probability of a failure is high. The people have too much to lose by calling for more representation and honestly not that much to gain.

How many of those involved plea deals? If you can't afford legal representation, you won't get anything that deserves to be called that in the US. If you're then also faced with the ridiculously high sentences you can get in the US, you'll no doubt find yourself pleading guilty to a lot of things to get a deal.

Of course Breitbart claims that. Go to a prison and you'll see all the inmates claiming innocence. If this is the best argument you can up with I'd advice to not bring it up at all.

Breitbart itself describes itself very clearly as a champion for the neo-nazis that have re-branded themselves as "alt-right". Much of the news they provide is clearly misleading.

I wouldn't necessarily go so far as saying Breitbart produces fake news, however there are sites that produce fake news. Completely made up stuff targeting conservatives to make money. This is a very real problem and it needs to be solved.

Don't mistake the flu for a cold. A cold is an inconvenience, the flu kills between a few thousand to tens of thousands of people, depending on which strain is currently dominant, every season in the US alone. You don't have to be particularly old or young for it to kill you either, quite a few otherwise perfectly healthy adults also manage to get to be unlucky.

Germany doesn't impose any exams at all. The only limiting factor is that you qualify for university and maybe your grade, if the number of applicants requires it.

There are no exams that need to be passed, no essays need to be written or anything of the sort.

Of course it would work for the US, if the US had sufficiently powerful insurance agencies. If hospitals and doctors want a certain amount of money and insurance agencies have the power to say no, these healthcare providers just won't see any patients or only rich ones.

This is how it works in Germany for example. As a hospital you have to accept the money you'll get or you won't get any at all.

The healthcare market in the US is not balanced and this gives healthcare providers to increase prices to ridiculous levels, especially in rural areas.

There is a difference between retrospectively determining that an injury is minor and doing so prospectively. It might not have looked all that minor when those tests were made.

Germany introduced national health care in 1883 but I'm sure we'll see how unsustainable it is any day now.

You're right of course. Nevertheless I think actions speak louder than works. The Republican party is not known for being hesitant or compromising. If they'd actually believe Obama's executive orders to be unconstitutional, they would've done more than complain.

They're not doing more though, so I can only conclude that they're not at all convinced that they're unconstitutional.

To be fair though I have no idea what Trump is thinking, I don't think anybody really does. He might actually believe what he's saying in this instance.

Who is supposed to decide on which of these is unconstitutional or not, if not the Supreme Court and if the Supreme Court decides that what stopped the Republicans from going to court earlier? Surely they would have, if the thought they'd get anywhere.

He says it because it sounds better on the surface than just throwing out all executive orders, which doesn't make sense anyway. He'll just throw out what he doesn't like and claim that those are unconstitutional.

This is a weak appeal to moderates and nothing more.

It's not just a question of what expertise the legislative has or doesn't have. Just like software you'd ideally want to work on laws in an iterative fashion. It's incredibly unlikely that a law, especially complex laws like the Affordable Care Act, work perfectly so it makes sense to go over it after you've seen it's effects and make corrections.

In the current political environment that's not really an option, so you pass on power to the executive and states to make changes instead.

In bank or medical situations you can run into situations where even though the people all know English, they might not have the necessary vocabulary to express themselves in English or lack certification proving they do. Anyone who doesn't want to fuck up simply won't use English and require a translator.

Yeah because you'll get money instead of employee benefits. Money you might be forced by law to spend on things like health insurance. Not to mention the additional effort on your part when it comes to securing contracts, managing taxes, insurance and just overall having less job security.

The site could use an explanation for what React Fiber actually is.

You can have a scientific model of photosynthesis and explain the concept and how it works to students based on that model. They wouldn't be able to somehow implement that process afterwards nor would anyone expect them to.

Software isn't like that. Software has to describe a process unambiguously and exhaustively. There is no option to say "and now you do X" while leaving X undefined.

Software can't be simpler than the process it describes, it can only provide a simpler interface.

The problem here isn't a lack of training or culture. Properly "washing your hands" takes a surprisingly large amount of time. In practice people don't do it not because they don't know how or don't want to but because they can't. They simply don't have the time either in general or sometimes in a specific situation.

If you want to make a significant impact here, you would need to hire more staff.

If there are two courses of action both with potentially deadly side effects, your definition would consider it a mistake taking one and having the patient die due to that side effect.

I think mistake should imply doing something even though a better option was available and known (or should've been known) to the person making the decision.

Apple started a bounty program at this years WWDC.

Opening this site in Safari froze my entire machine. Granted it's a 5 year old Macbook Air but still this should never happen.

Generally it seems to me that whenever something involves WebGL, performance and UX goes out the window.

How do you prevent an attacker from getting the seed? This would just create a possible attack vector that could be used to effectively disable address space randomization.

Left wing politicians tend to do things that are actually useful with that money though. Trump just gives himself tax breaks.

The only difference between Trump and Pence is that Pence is more qualified to execute the horrible promises they've made.

Those are all good reasons to use a bike but if you use one as a politician (consider that Germany has a Green party that actually matters) it's also a way of showing "street cred", if you will.

It will certainly come across better to your voters than taking the limo to the train station (Berlin central station is 5 min by foot away from the parliament), which is supposedly a fairly common occurrence.

The German parliament essentially has its own taxi service for the members to use within Berlin.

The only reason to use something else for transport, like a bicycle, is for political reasons.

Besides the parliament has no power over where subway lines in Berlin are built.

To the average citizen the majority of regulation is incomprehensible because it deals with things they never have to deal with. I care that the food I buy is safe not precisely how regulation and standardization makes it so or that I personally understand it. The entire point of representative democracy is that I don't have to.

The vast amount of "regulation" is simply standardization to simplify trade in the single market. The industries affected themselves tend to want it even while people make fun of it in the media.

The amount of money invested in the EU is really not all that enormous, besides it's not like it disappears in a black hole. It seems like any significant infrastructure project in the EU gets at least some EU funding. Especially Eastern Europe has benefitted greatly from that and we all benefit as the East catches up with the rest of Europe.

In any case you can't just scrap the EU and start fresh and instantly come up with the perfect solution. This is not how politics and policy works or has ever worked. Any non-trivial system is built iteratively through incremental improvement, especially large systems. A more integrated Europe is achieved by improving the EU not by replacing it with some fantasy that will never come to fruition.

Reading Wikileaks alone is essentially worthless because you will lack the necessary context.

A good example for this is all of the discussion about reporters colluding with Clinton based on the leaked emails because reporters are making request for comments, which is standard journalistic practice. Several such situations came up as a consequence of these leaks.

This is not to say you shouldn't look at the stuff released by Wikileaks at all but don't make the mistake of believing you get the entire picture from that or if you do, that you have the knowledge required to interpret it correctly.