qnpnp

That's the EU law position, but national law may not agree. I believe both France and Germany, for instance, consider their national constitution to be above EU law (even if the EU Court of Justice disagrees) - Though in practice the constitution was amended when necessary to avoid any conflict.

This is easy to fix, not an explanation.

Gaming on mac is indeed lacking, but that's really not the reason.

My solution is cloud gaming in that case, such as GeforceNow (for compatible games), or Shadow (for a whole PC to do as you please).

Sorry if I'm missing something but are you responding to the right comment? Your answer doesn't seem related to what I said.

I'm also not sure how that relates to your earlier point about "Joseki", which I was disputing (like many others).

I think is the best Go tutorial to learn the rules: https://www.learn-go.net

Highly disagree.

Fuseki (opening) doesn't matter much for most players. AI confirmed that a wide variety of openings, even weird ones far removed from the usual credo, work very well. At worst you may lose a couple points in doing so, but unless you play at a high level that's negligible and will never be the reason you lost.

Joseki (corner sequences) is also not that important, and certainly not something any beginner should spend time on. In fact, a common Go proverb is to "learn Joseki and lose two stones" (get weaker). We often see beginners learning Joseki, getting confused when their opponent doesn't follow the sequence they have in mind and ultimately blundering their corner. Or they ask "how to punish that?", without realizing that many moves are good even if they are not Joseki, and there's nothing to punish.

I wouldn't say so for KGS, especially for beginners. OGS is the go-to for western servers nowadays.

Fox, without a doubt. I recommend Weiqihubb for a quick-access app to asian servers on all platforms, with puzzles (https://walruswq.com/WeiqiHub).

This is wrong though.

France held a referendum on the creation of the EU in 1992, and approved it.

You're thinking of the 2005 referendum, which was about the TCE. The EU already existed before that.

By this logic, most of EU governments are not democratic bodies either.

> Who do you accuse of genocide now?

The one doing it

> They've just been denied the chance.

Perhaps. Perhaps if they somehow had the time, means and power to do it, they would have killed as many people on the other side, although this is high speculative as the past decades would have played out very differently anyway.

I'm not sure where you're going with that though. Nobody claims Hamas are kind and gently guys.

Being a "first-world" country has never been incompatible with war crimes.

> For one, having the leader be actually elected by the people and not second hand appointed by corruptible politicians.

That's a strange requirement considering the executive of most EU states is not directly elected by people either. Do you not consider Germany or Italy to be countries?

It's common for the executive branch to have the right to propose legislation, and often the main way legislation is proposed in many countries.

While I agree this should ideally also be available to the EP, it doesn't make the EC a legislative branch. It's very much the executive.

Sometimes this is indeed merely "fancy" and vacuous, but other times it is a meaningful and more engaging way to present the content. I feel like this is an example of the latter.

Even if you're not a fan and would have done it differently, it seems a bit hard to understand what could be so bothersome that you have to close it in 10s...

> The EU continually being jealous that the US continuously runs circles around them and lapping over and over and over and over . . .

You're making up imaginary scenarios which have nothing to do with this antitrust litigation...

Sure, and in that case no issue. But that is the government stance, not the EU stance.

No. This isn't a tax case, and EU has no authority on direct tax matters. The point is not that Ireland should change its tax rules.

This is an antitrust case. The point is that Ireland gave Apple preferential terms compared to its own tax rules.

How is it weird for a country to be bound by the treaties it entered into?

This is an antitrust case, not a tax case. The whole point is that other firms did not benefit from the same rules.

Well you seem to be confusing "what is good art" and "what is art". I vehemently disagree with saying 4:33 or the banana "isn't art", this sounds like a very narrow definition which I struggle to imagine.

I have more sympathy for the claim that it's not "good art", not particularly interesting or meaningful.

With regard to the banana I tend to agree. This was just a small provocating artpiece which doesn't bring anything to the table and is unlikely to be discussed much in ten years, let alone 70.

4:33 however is still very much discussed 70 years later and will continue to be, and that may be because it's not just a random joke but fits within the work of an important composer (John Cage) which contributed significantly to the artistic debate of what "is" music, at a time where this question was suddenly much less clear than it had been in the past (i.e. the same piece today would be much less meaningful).

You're assuming another rule here, which not only isn't written but is even explicitly excluded in the very beginning of this experiment.

As the article is in French, here is the gist of it:

- Alpine Mag had previously published an article accusing Kittiya Pawlowski of having deceived people with fake pictures (https://alpinemag.com/fake-snow-leopard-photomontage-spread-... - article in English). This was discussed and debated on HN (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33788357)

- At the time this claim was mainly based on the landscape/background of the pictures which appeared fake. Alpine mag suspected the snow leopard was fake as well but could not yet prove it.

- This update shows that the snow leopard was indeed taken from another person's photographies (Sylvain Cordier). It also accuses Kittiya Pawlowski of having already used another person's photography to win the Chromatic Award in 2020.

Yes, I'm still on the fence as to whether the above comment was genuine (in which case I truly can't understand it) or meant as some kind of sarcastic denunciation of this list by showing that you can always find a remote reason to be offended.

You're missing the point. Nobody here is criticizing the art itself; it looks great.

The whole point is deceiving people into believing those are real pictures when they are not. She received huge exposure in major newspapers, specialist magazines, social media, even the American embassy because of this (and sold many prints). She enjoyed that attention, even reblogged the article from the Times of London, without ever correcting anybody about the actual nature of her work.

Had she been forthright about the fact that the pictures were fake, she never would have received such attention. The picture still look cool in their own right, but we would be far from the incredible achievement that such picture would represent if they were real.

As Munier said: "I’ve got nothing against this type of creation, but it has to be presented as such".

This is not a random source, and most importantly it is not a source without context.

If she had just posted these pics on her instagram with no comments I would be much more willing to say she never claimed anything and people just jumped on it. I probably wouldn't need to, however, because this whole thing wouldn't have happened in that case.

What she did is posting these pics on her website together with a whole story and presentation, with plenty of details and explanations, which makes her appear as a nature photographer on a difficult trip to spot a rare animal and who magically manages to find what she's looking for with a perfect setting, allowing her to snap incredible photography. Obviously such impressive photos will then circulate everywhere (and many people will ask to buy it).

Note that, despite the extensive description of her work for these pictures (i) there is not a single mention they are fake (prior to the disclaimer which was added later), (ii) the website is dedicated to those pictures and does not refer to her previous work on digital image (iii) before the deception was exposed she seemed very happy to be featured on newspaper since she included the article of the London Times.

My view is that this is genuine deceit, not just a person who published pictures without giving it much thoughts and simply found out afterwards that people misinterpreted it.

It seems pretty normal that people react to deception, even if it occurs outside the setting of a formal competition.

She's anything but upfront.

Until the disclaimer was added there was no way to tell these photos were fake. On the contrary, there was a whole story-telling about how she made this difficult trip and suddenly saw what she was looking for in a magical moment, which supports the idea that this was genuine animal photography.

It is therefore no surprise that people assumed these photos were real and now feel deceived.

Even now that she added this disclaimer, she is antyhing but clear as to what is actually real or not. Are we speaking of editing and composite as in "I took a great photo and just added a few rocks here and removed a cloud there to make it cooler" or in "I built this whole landscape and then added a snow leopard on top of it"?

She claims she genuinely photographied the snow leopard, but this is very unlikely and the deception already identified makes it difficult to believe her.

Edit: reading more carefully she claims she saw "what she was looking for" which you would obviously interpret as a snow leopard, but is vague enough to offer her yet again another opportunity to say she "never said that".