The future of fascism hasnt looked this bright since the 1930
2,080 karma · joined March 26, 2014
No, this is conflating "GDPR consent" and the ePrivacy Directive. According to ePD the banner must always be shown if the company providing the service is based in the EU
Although i believe too for development teams it might be valuable, all devs get automatically access to all services with 1-click install etc etc. But question is how unique/powerful is it.
A proportionally representative system in IMO better from this perspective.
My interpretation is difficult and complex domain specific regulation were handled by agency experts, and not lawyers. It is now up to congress to detail very specifically this potentially difficult regulation and to quickly adjust when research changes.
Is my interpretation incorrect? Since to me this current approach sounds terrible, inflexibly and set-up to fail.
But everyone in a position in power and/or leadership is presumably MAGA now? Who will they promote within the party?
1. GOP has been MAGA for 10 years.
2. The electorate elected him again, even after being a felon, even after 6th Jan.
What is the reason to assume it _will_ change?
How safe would cities with micro mobility be if we spent the same on them?
It is obvious it is not. The purpose of a system is what it does.
Well, it agreed to:
>In 1994, Ukraine agreed to transfer these weapons to Russia and became a party to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, in exchange for assurances from Russia, the United States and United Kingdom to respect the Ukrainian independence and sovereignty in the existing borders.
I don't necessarily disgree with the central thesis of your comment and your perspectices, but i think there is a more fruitful balance to be had than what i see as completee capitulation to Russia and the abandonment of Europe (after almost a century of collaboration and investment).
At some point one need to ask oneself: what am i defending?
I believe showing Russia, China, and the world, that USA stands behinds it commitments and allies, defends the rule based world order and is true leader of the democratic society would deter leaders such as Putin and Xi from trying anything.
NATO is (imo) close to collapsing. All it would take is a minor just-under-war incursion, e.g. in northern Finland by Russia. Would USA (Trump) defend Finland in this scenario? If not, NATO is dead and the next 100 years belong to China and Russia.
They could, yes. But would they need to if Russia is weak? The current strategy from USA seems to be to appease Russia, give them what they want and weaken security guarantees. The point im trying to make is that there is another way here which i beleive nets the West (both USA and Europe – USA's natural ally) more benefits than gearing up for war (aka the Peace Dividend).
>lack the capabilities to develop credible nuclear delivery systems
Is this the case? I think Sweden were months away from testing their nuclear bombs when they were conviced to dismantle the system in return for protection from USA's nuclear umbrella and were in process of producing supersonic nuclear bomber in the 1950s. They still produce today world class submarines, develops and build their own fighter jets.
I would think that Europe has knowledge and skillset. I mean, North Korea managed.
It has enabled a very stable and predictable world. This has benefited USA immensely. It it not clear to me, that rewinding and dismantling this system will have net positive effects in the next 50 years for USA.
Compared to PV, according to ChatGPT:
* Low-end estimate ($800 per kW): 30,000,000 kW × $800 = $24 billion.
* High-end estimate ($1,500 per kW): 30,000,000 kW × $1,500 = $45 billion.
In 2047, when it should be completed (not counting delays – for which nuclear construction is renowned), i wonder how even more cheaper PV will be.
Im genuinely curious about this, would you mind sharing references?