Humanius

No. Just like German, Dutch uses compound words.

“Aansprakelijkheidsverzekering” is two words in a trench coat:

• Aansprakelijkheid (liability, or more literally: adressableness)
• Verzekering (insurance, or more literally: assurance)

You can further break those down too:

• “Aansprakelijkheid” is built around the word “spraak” (speech), so if we want to be even more literal it means “to-speakable-ness”
• “Verzekering” is built around the word “zeker” (certain/sure), hence the literal meaning “a-sure-ance”

So in a way that word means “to-speakableness-assurance”

Edit: One of the longest (non-medical) words in the dictionary is actually another type of insurance:

“Arbeidsongeschiktheidsverzekering” (Insurance for being unfit to work (i.e. disability insurance), literally “labour-unsuitableness-assurance”)

You got me to double check whether I actually have liability insurance (aansprakelijkheidsverzekering in Dutch)

Looks like I’m good 👍

Iceland is part of Schengen

They are still functional tyres. I’ve been driving on all season tyres for years now and it’s never been an issue.
I live in a country with a relatively mild climate, so we don’t really get extreme winters or summers. All season tyres are plenty good enough for the occional light dusting of snow in winter.

As a Dutchman, I just don’t want to get fined when driving into Germany. Preferably without breaking the bank.

These days there exist four-season tyres, which to my knowledge meet the requirements of countries that require winter tyres in winter or wintery conditions.

I was on board with the first guy, but this is going too far. We should compromise between the 2- and 4-spaces camp, and we settle on 3 spaces.

The prophecy predicts there will be exactly four major cyber incidents this week.

I group my albums by artist, and I sort them by artist, then year of release, then album name.
Each song in the album is sorted by track number.

Music/Albums/Pink Floyd/Pink Floyd (1973) - The Dark Side of the Moon/06 Pink Floyd - Money.flac

I also make sure all tags are set correctly so that they get sorted correctly in programs like Jellyfin and Finamp

DD-MM-YYYY is what is most commonly used in Europe, and in my opinion it is perfectly acceptable and logical to use.

But YYYY-MM-DD does have one major benefit that makes it extremely useful for archival purposes. When you sort it alphabetically, it also sorts correctly by date.

You can even keep going and use YYYY-MM-DD HH:mm:SS…

I honestly wouldn’t oppose cutting the Russian internet out from the rest of the world

It’s a lot easier to cut off your own country from the internet than it is to cut off another country from the internet.

Packets will route through whatever path is available. So even if you cut the wires in the countries within your influence where you border with Russia, other countries that border Russia that you might still want to connect to may not do the same thing.

So physically disconnecting Russia is basically not happening.

There is innocent people in my country too. That doesn’t mean we are somehow owed the same privileged position that the US has held for decades.

The US really pissed away any strategic advantage it may have had with that little stunt sanctioning a few justices and prosecutors.

It made it plainly obvious to anyone paying attention that American software cannot be trusted, and caused a bunch of countries to start preparing their exit strategy for building down their dependence on American software.

And for what?.. So that they could be an annoyance to some people prosecuting the war criminal, and friend of the US government, Benjamin Netanyahu? That sounds like such a small win, if it causes you to lose the leverage completely.

Edit: Not that I mind. It’s a good thing that it’s this plainly obvious that we cannot trust a reliance on anything American.
It makes it cost a whole lot less political capital in order to get governments to move away from these dependencies.

I did not call euthanasia itself a part of the erosion of the west, I was simply mentioning at a general development.

In that case I must apologize. I misinterpreted what you meant with that erosion. I also shouldn’t have written it as a quote as I initially did, since it was paraphrasing and not a direct quote. I didn’t mean to misrepresent.

That still doesn’t change the rest of my argument, however.

Secondly, I don’t believe the parents should decide.

That’s fair. We differ in opinion on that, and I can see where you are coming from.

My issue with that, however, is that we then end up in a situation again where this child needs to spend ten years in whatever pain and agony they might be going through, just because they legally cannot make the decision by themselves.

Preferably that should not be happening, and giving the parents the ability to decide on their behalf is in my view an acceptable compromise to prevent that suffering from happening. While it is a decision with a lot more weight, we already do give parents a lot of power to make decisions for their child in other situations, so it is not entirely without precedent.

…Another country making mistakes doesn’t absolve the Netherlands if the Netherlands serves as law-inspo

I think this is a ridiculous take. The Netherlands cannot be held responsible for what it didn’t do itself.

You don’t understand. The child, while suffering extremely, is in no way able to consent to their killing. The state sanctions it as ok, as long as a list of criteria are met.

Which at that point becomes a decision that is made by the parents, not the state. The state can’t decide for you that you will be euthanised. That is a decision to be made either by the person in question, or in the case of a two-year-old their parents.

The alternative would be to not allow euthanasia on young children at all, and force this child to live with their disease and experience hopeless and unbearable suffering for ten years, until they are twelve years old. That was the old cut-off point for decisions like this.

The way I see it, is that giving parents to ability make this decision on their child’s behalf, in order to make sure their child doesn’t have to needlessly suffer, can be a good thing if done carefully and thoughtfully. The checks and balances are there to make sure that is gets done carefully and thoughtfully.

I certainly wouldn’t call that an erosion of the west as per your first comment.

This signals to other powers, who view the Netherlands as a role model that state sanctioned involuntary killing in medicine is fine, as long as you have a long list of reasons you can go through.

So because another country might not be deliberate in the way they implement their version of euthanasia, we shouldn’t be implementing our version of euthanasia?

Edit: Removed the quote characters around “erosion of the west”, because it isn’t a direct quote. It’s a paraphrasing, and it’s disingenuous of me to put that in quotes.

Euthanasia so often gets portrayed as if it is just like an option at the buffet table that you can chose if you so feel like it. But that is not even remotely like how the system is set up in the Netherlands at all.

The only case in which someone is even eligible for euthanasia is if they suffer from a chronic illness, for which there is no possible cure, and you effectively will have to endure undue suffering for the rest of your life. And as you say, at that point it is still up to the discretion of the doctor, who is in turn liable for that decision. There is a whole bunch of checks and balances to make sure that it doesn’t just become a free-for-all.

This is not some ploy by some reactionary government to eradicate “life unworthy of life”, as distal@lemmy.ml suggest

Here we go again…

I’ll bite… Why would that be my goal?

e-ID isn’t mandatory (it’s not even available in every country), but the form should be filled in with correct personal information.
They will need to verify whether the people who filled in the form are actual people who are eligible to sign the citizens’ initiative.

Using e-ID just makes the whole verification easier for everyone.

Given that this is part of the legislative process, and there is legal requirements for European Parliament to adhere to if the Citizen’s Initiative meets the threshold, I would argue that signing the petition has a similar weight to casting a ballot in an election.

Just like how you need to verify in an election that someone is legally allowed to vote in that election, this petition needs to verify whether someone is legally allowed to sign the petition.

If there was no verification of identity, hypothetically someone could fill the platform with junk petitions, which could all be signed by a bunch of Russian bots. It would completely undermine the democratic process.

So yes, I do believe identity verification is “strictly necessary” in this case