Which sovereign countries, do you think, would have implemented something like the GDPR if the EU Parliament did not exist?

Assuming you see the GDPR - the right to control personal information - as a good thing, as I do.

There’s a whole section dedicated to student demand.

“slams”?

Apparently, police get IIRC 6k USD for getting people to sign up. They’ll force people to sign up with local forces. Coercion will probably get worse than it already was.

I suspect the “company must offer x percent of personel”, which has been used before, will also be used.

I’m sure there’s already another wave of people fleeing the country. Anyone who was freely willing to sign up probably already did. Who knows how effective their youth education was, maybe they get some more people that way.

I’ve read an article previously. I don’t think I’ll be able to find it again.

I guess that’s the two possible roads. Integrate into the system with compromise, becoming mellow, or get legitimized by others to be strengthened as an extremist, eventually grabbing power.

History and research shows the opposite to be true. Coalition, talking, taking over their topics, anything legitimizing strengthens them. The only effective counter is a broad rejection across politics, society, including companies, religious institutions etc, and press.

deleted by creator

The European court of auditors (ECA) said the EU was much better prepared than before Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine of 2022, but achieving its goal of defence readiness by the end of the decade would be difficult.

I’m sure if it became more pressing and necessary, some things would change much more rapidly, just like decoupling from Russia and increased defense spending did.

What is “defense readiness”?

the European Commission president Ursula von der Leyen said “readiness 2030” meant “to have rearmed and developed the capabilities to have credible deterrence” and “an industrial base that is a strategic advantage”.

I don’t know. The EU seems plenty deterrent already, certainly to invade, but also economic strength. Could more strength deter someone like Putin? I don’t know, who doesn’t go by reason? Seems like a pretty diffuse definition and goal to call doubt on “the goal” or “readiness”.

Maybe the negative framing is necessary to pressure for an effective military that would be better able to defend and act? What does “defend” mean? There would certainly be damage no matter the strength.

How much of a car cost is electricity cost vs labor cost? I suspect the latter to me much higher.

The energy economics are more complex than just supply and demand. Pricing has additional conditions.

Is that only about absolute numbers? That says nothing about relative compared to coal if coal also increases.

The second link shows nuclear from 60 to target 110, coal from 1.2k to unknown, wind and solar target 1.2k GW but already at 1.8k.

I don’t see nuclear replacing coal. I see renewables already massively winning.

EDF remains heavily in debt.

France is also importing from Germany when they can’t cover their own demand.

It’s a collaborative network.

In 30 years if you start now, and for how many billions?

And then you gotta turn them off in summer when rivers are too hot or too low.

Currently, Putin could use a NATO response, depending on what it is, as justification for mobilization and continuing his war. Probing NATO is not only about disrupting NATO.

You can see in Ukraine how they use terror to break Ukraine, not realizing it makes them more committed and united. The same flaw is in their theory and approach towards European nations. They hope sabotage and terror will push insecurity and fear, disagreement and reduction of support.

This airport is apparently a significant military or Ukraine support hub. So there is a pretty direct benefit too, as well as hope of criticism of support to Ukraine, because of security or economic risk.

An attack on drone production that sends to Ukraine would fulfill multiple goals in their eyes. A retaliation could give justification for mobilization and continuation.

Personally, even in the event of a direct attack with soldiers on land, I expect NATO and EU will act decisive but careful. Not necessarily with retaliation, only with defense. They’re driven by policy and reason. Unlike Russia.

Which, despite plenty of evidence and indication, continues the same strategy at great loss, cannibalizing and destroying itself. Even the “elite” corruption gains, which are still a thing, becomes increasingly volatile and at risk.

Last week Slovenia stopped the EU from issuing a unified statement criticising the Israeli government’s move to break the West Bank by building settlements in the E1 area, as defined by international law.

Hungary, under Orbán, repeatedly using its leverage over EU decisions to extract concessions, including guarantees over the Druzhba oil pipeline. Under Péter Magyar, Budapest has also blocked Ukraine from making enlargement progress.

Two examples listed where it would have helped oppose genocide.

China is a bit different from Russia, from what I have seen. Russia is oppressive and corrupt in general and by design. China is oppressive and corrupt, but still has systems and efforts to do better. They do fight corruption to a degree, even if and while they’re trying to hide any transparency on corruption, and the whole system certainly enables corruption as well. They censor, but ultimately react and take action on public outrage when it happens, to serve the people. In many aspects they are deaf to the people, but apparently have systems of people responsible for shops and orgs and random people can report issues to them to be solved. I don’t know, maybe it also depends on locality how well any of those systems work or not.

Russia is a lost, corrupt cause. China has its own imperialistic ideas it actively pursues. But maybe we can still hope that they will act with reason and not go through with them. If the risk and cost are high enough for them.

While the ballistic missiles certainly damage Kyiv and its people, they haven’t pushed them into surrender. I don’t see how spreading out the ballistic missiles Russia has to more countries, who will then join the war more actively, would help them.

Never heard of armament of Uyghurs. Only criticism of how they’re being handled. Who do you think arms them and how? Has violence even been an issue in recent times? Seems like it could be just the Chinese narrative without any evidence or occurrences.

Sanctioning the company mentioned would be a good start.