This is the observation: we massively overshoot in terms of the role (space, infrastructure) we assign to cars, especially in densely populated areas.
If we can create viable alternatives to driving we can make these places much, much more enjoyable. Quieter, nicer to be around, more human scale, more convenient.
That’s all. Nowhere in there is any claim that cars aren’t immensely useful. In less densely populated people. For people with disabilities. Etc.
Why can’t we have the nice things? And yeah, the nice things do include walkable cities like we had them in 19th century. Sometimes and in some places to a very limited extent the past with some modern conveniences (like trams, modern bicycles) was better.
US post pandemic economic recovery has been astonishingly great measured against other major economies.
Obviously (real) wages did take a hit like everywhere but have been recovering, too.
My working theory is that noticeable inflations makes people go crazy and trumps anything else. Completely closes people off to rational thought and that’s what sunk Biden. Despite awesome economic recovery given the circumstances.
It’s worse than that. Everything leading up to this and this reversion right now is a perfect demonstration that the current US administration cannot be trusted and behaves in irrational ways. You cannot expect consistency and enduring policies. It’s all fickle and capricious. How are you supposed to do any planning with this?
This is all so obviously dumb and I’m frankly astounded by so many people (especially here on HN) playing devils advocate or, I don’t know, honestly believing that this all makes sense.
Even if you agree with the stated (also somewhat incoherent, by the way) goals why do you think this implementation can achieve any of that?
I believe the point is power, and from that lens everything makes perfect sense. Trump is exercising available levers of global influence -- for good or for bad -- in a way that hasn't occurred since Hitler initiated World War II.
Tariffs are appealing to him because they are incredibly forceful blunt instruments over which he alone has almost complete control. They give him immense, immediate influence over the entire world. What we're seeing is that the US President today, if the full capacities of that office are pushed as far as possible without violence, is arguably one of (if not the) most powerful human beings ever.
Beyond this, Trump has said that one of his greatest weapons is uncertainty. He wants to be feared. Having people genuinely afraid of you is the next step of power that he is already flirting with by posting videos of people being blown up in warfare on social media.
And what will he do when China and rest of the world tired of his untreated Narcissistic Personality Disorder will start selling US debt, like $trillions in bonds in say less than a week? I bet you finally someone broke the secret to him today, so he reverted the policy.
This is some weird American version of Juche, not reducing dependency on China. Can you explain the dependency reduction mechanism to me?
Just as an analogy: If you were to detonate all nuclear weapons in the US inside the US you would also reduce dependency on China. Doesn’t mean it’s a good idea. The path matters.
Sure. Might be. But you are here asking for Europe to preemptively roll over and give in to Russian wars of aggression.
From a game theory point of view how is that supposed to bring peace? That just shows Russia that they can do whatever they want and reach their goals. We already had the Minsk agreement Russia violated. Why should Russia stop when we give in to their demands? What‘s the logic there?
At some point you have to show strength. And earlier is probably better if you want to prevent WWIII
> At some point you have to show strength. And earlier is probably better if you want to prevent WWIII
Sure, EU combined already spends three times as much as Russia in "showing strength". I'm sure there must be a way to use what we have without tripling the expense. If nothing, because showing that we need 10 times their military expense to keep up with them would only show that we are in fact weaker.
Unless the goal of rearmament is only to make a few weapon manufacturers richer, then I'd say we've found the most efficient way to do it.
I don’t think re-armament is the only or the best solution. It’s just that with the US having left the picture Europe does have to show strength if it has to have any hope of keeping Russia at bay. That‘s not just arms, that’s also credible deterrence. How can Europe achieve that absent the US without spending on arms?
I do think that Ukraine is instructive in terms of Russia not being as almighty as they might seem, but in terms of outcome Putin is scary close to achieving practically all of his war aims short of Ukraine ceasing to exist. I learned that Putin is patient. He can take it step by step. He does not value human life. And that’s dangerous.
At great cost to the Russian people, sure, but does Putin care? Another five to ten years and he can give something else a go. And suddenly he is in the Baltcis or at the Polish border.
Based on the way Russia has been gradually pushing more and more. Step by step. Slowly.
They take what they want. They are appeased. A couple years nothing happens. They take what they want. They are appeased … etc.
Invading Ukraine should be a clear warning that Russia will not just stop. For appeasement to end and for Europe to seriously look for viable paths to peace. Not just yearlong pauses in fighting that allow Russia to regain strength. That is not peace.
The allies actually did create a just peace through strength in Europe during and after WWII. So I’m not sure why you are so offended by that thought? Would there have been a better way to create a peace that all in all has been lasting for more than three quarters of a century now? Would it have been better to further appease the facists?(Obviously not a perfect or complete peace. Obviously the Cold War also sucked. Not disputing any of that.)
Also, obviously I hope that this time around it’s not too late to prevent facists from burning Europe to the ground before we can defeat them.
Do you dispute that showing strength is an element to peace? (I’m not talking about killing people or invading other countries. I’m talking about a demonstrated and credible willingness to defend your values and alliances.)
> The allies actually did create a just peace through strength
They won the war, the goal was clearly defeating the axis. Did you have a shower today or did you achieve a just and long lasting personal hygiene through water?
You should at least be brave enough to say it like it is: you want to win the war.
The only problem is that this time the enemy has enough nuclear weapons to trigger a new ice age, so you resort to Newspeak.
> Also, obviously I hope that this time around it’s not too late to prevent facists from burning Europe to the ground before we can defeat them.
For how I see it we got them already in the commission and doing all they can to burn the EU to the ground.
Apple has been completely unwilling to play ball. They behaved like a petulant child through all of this.
I’m completely convinced that no one at the EU wants to micro manage any of this. But they have to. Because Apple has been failing to read the room for years.
You went into women only spaces with the obvious intent to troll.
Quote: „Deshalb ist der Chaos Computer Club nach seiner Satzung und nach dem Willen der Mitglieder eine galaktische Gemeinschaft für alle Lebensformen. Als solche wollen wir allen Teilnehmenden eine sichere und schöne Erfahrung auf unseren Veranstaltungen bieten, unabhängig von Alter, geschlechtlicher und sexueller Identität, körperlichen und geistigen Voraussetzungen, ethnischer, regionaler und/oder religiöser Zugehörigkeit bzw. Herkunft, äußerlicher Erscheinung oder sozioökonomischer Stellung.
Wer sich dieser Offenheit nicht verpflichtet fühlt, hat bei uns nichts zu suchen.“
Translation: “That is why the Chaos Computer Club, according to its constitution and the will of its members, is a galactic community for all life forms. As such, we want to offer all participants a safe and enjoyable experience at our events, regardless of age, gender and sexual identity, physical and mental abilities, ethnic, regional and/or religious affiliation or origin, physical appearance or socio-economic status.
Anyone who does not feel committed to this openness has no place with us.”
Anyone who goes into protected spaces with the intent to troll and score political points is an obvious (metaphorical) bomb thrower who should have no place in any events that want to provide all participants a “safe and enjoyable experience”.
“Open to all creatures” does obviously not mean anyone can come. Anyone who themselves cannot be open to all creatures has to be aggressively excluded from such events. That is the only way to defend openness.
Sounds that he was making the very reasonable point that no males should be in such spaces, and he was showing up the "inclusion" policy that permits males who say they're women into women's spaces for the misogynistic sham that it is.
Well that is your interpretation. The semi-official transgender association of germany approved my application for a female id which allowed me entry into female only spaces as a matter of german law. If you have a problem with that law don't take it up with me, talk to lawmakers.
This is the observation: we massively overshoot in terms of the role (space, infrastructure) we assign to cars, especially in densely populated areas.
If we can create viable alternatives to driving we can make these places much, much more enjoyable. Quieter, nicer to be around, more human scale, more convenient.
That’s all. Nowhere in there is any claim that cars aren’t immensely useful. In less densely populated people. For people with disabilities. Etc.
Why can’t we have the nice things? And yeah, the nice things do include walkable cities like we had them in 19th century. Sometimes and in some places to a very limited extent the past with some modern conveniences (like trams, modern bicycles) was better.