Just SUVs? Why not Lamborghini, Ferrari, Bently, or all the other luxery vehicles? This seems pretty arbitrary at first glance. I don’t know french car culture very well but aren’t SUVs more of a middle class thing?
French car culture isnt much different than European car culture in general, for the sake of the topic here. Small displacement engines (1.6, or 2.0 liter usually) and small footprint because of space. Scooters and pedal bikes are super common around places like Paris, tho…parking, gas, weaving through the congestion, etc. However, some of the wagon variants of cars and these luxury cars you mention sometimes have a much larger footprint than small and mid-sized SUVs. Unless overhead clearance is an issue, like in parking garages, i don’t quite understand the reason for singling out SUVs here.
This, of course, is all stated with European sized SUVs in mind that share the same small displacement engines as other cars. Not the giant American sized ones that have much larger engines where emissions issues now come into play. However, all those luxury cars usually have even bigger engines and sometimes the loud exhaust as well…sooo…🤷
Could it also be to do with the increased lethality of SUVs? A study in Ireland shows 11.5% of pedestrians hit by an SUV were killed versus 4.5% for a car.
No law is perfect and there’s always an edge case to provide a reason for doing nothing. This is definitely a step in the right direction to stop the arms race that purchasing larger vehicles has become though.
@throws_lemy I just read about this guy on a Telegram channel that I follow (content is in Romanian). What the hell?!? How can people actually vote for a crazy dude like him?!? There's a shitload of stuff that he wants that even a moderately right-wing person would disagree.
Even our most right-wing extremists would go crazy at the thought of abolishing the national currency in exchange for a foreign one (or maybe it's only when it's about Euros, who knows). Let alone selling babies and organs on the free market.
I don’t think most people actually voted for him - it’s more like he was the lesser of two evils. Now consider what that says about the other candidate.
I know, right? Consider this though: Argentina’s biggest problem right now is the economy, and his opponent in the presidential race was the current finance minister, who one could argue has already given a quite impressive demonstration of his incompetence. “Four more years of the same” simply isn’t a realistic option. Milei’s plans for the economy on the other hand could be worth a try.
I suspect he’s a bit of a calculated risk to many - some of his ideas might actually be good for the economy (not the selling babies part obviously), and his more, uhm, controversial ideas are highly likely to be blocked by parliament. In that aspect he might be the kind of healing shock that the country needs.
So far we know that he appears to have toned down his rhetoric a bit since his victory, and that the other party supporting him plans to ‘keep him in check’ in parliament. Let’s see how that turns out.
From what I hear the answer is no. The current opposition party (JxC) started supporting him when it was clear that their candidate couldn’t win against the incumbent party’s candidate (Sergio Massa, the current minister of economy), but they say they plan to vote against some of Milei’s more radical ideas.
What actually happens, and how many of his ideas Milei will actually try to get through parliament, remains to be seen.
I wonder if they are banking on, to put it into meme terms, “Heartbreaking: The Worst Person You Know Just Made A Great Point”.
And obviously I mean that in terms of a “great point” for the opposition.
I really don’t know anything about the parliamentary system of this country, hell I barely know enough about my own country, but this seems like at the best an interesting play and at the worst a huge miscalculation that will bite them in the arse.
Your guess is as good as mine. 🤷♂️ You know how the things politicians say before the elections and the things they do afterwards don’t necessarily have a lot in common, so I guess it remains exciting.
That looks like a pretty standard utility tunnel. The video conveniently stops at the “blast door” which isn’t actually weird because electricity is hella dangerous. I would be willing to bet the most dangerous thing found behind that door is a surge arrestor.
The hostages being led inside the hospital isn’t great, but it looks to me like they needed medical attention. What would you prefer happen? If I were a hostage and needed medical attention I would much rather live in a world where the hospital cooperates with the “baddies” to provide that medical care and do the “recovery” later, wouldn’t you?
Those videos show living hostages. If the goal is to recover the hostages then why is the IDF only recovering bodies?
Based on that evidence you provided I would offer the counter-narrative that it appears that Hamas is trying their best to keep the hostages alive while the IDF prefers them martyred.
What are you seeing here? There’s a small shaft that looks a long way from the hospital, maybe a well, maybe a sewer, nothing to suggest it’s anything untoward. There’s some people walking through some buildings, then a map with writing on.
Where are you seeing evidence here? Where are you seeing any of the things you’re claiming?
I geuss the US response would be the usual we’re the big guys here, what you gonna do about it ? and fuck you.
They did it when the whole mass surveillance thing was unveiled so I don’t think some poor archeologists can do much about this, can they ? I even think that the US archeologists that were tasked to analyze the authenticity are more than likely forced to comply and lie or risk being fired
I think you’ve misunderstood the article. What happened was a district attorney in the united states caught someone smuggling antiquities into the country. So the district attorney who caught them had everything sent back to the country of origin, exactly what they should do with smuggled antiquities. It turned out the guy was trafficking in mostly forgeries of pieces that are in other known locations and were never brought to the united states. The experts the district attorney used thought they were authentic. What on earth do you think the new york DA did wrong here? I guess they could hire better experts. But if they have what they think to be authentic artifacts that were smuggled out of countries, they did the right thing and sent them back to the country of origin. They’re saying this is just embarrassing for the DA because they billed this guy as a smuggler in their court case, but actually he’s a forger. I don’t see any reason for anyone to be outraged though, except maybe at the forger.
It was a loaded headline meant to trick people into clicking. If you just read the headline you’d think the United States government was stealing artifacts, forging them, and sending the forgeries back or something. Which has like nothing in common with the actual story in the article. Always pretty easy in the comments to tell who actually read the article and who made up an imaginary article in their head based on the headline.
I know titles are fake as shit. I read the post summary and the autotldr summary both didn’t contain anything explaining about any of what you said. Both actually renforce the idea that the antiques where sent as knowingly as fake.
Those auto tldr summaries can be super random and misleading too regardless. The auto tldr summary doesn’t imply anything like this either. It’s just a section of the article with an expert making fun of whatever expert the DA hired who missed that it was a forgery and thought it was authentic. So it’s embarrassing because they told this country, he we recovered your priceless artifact and threw the guy in jail who smuggled it. And the country is like, oh well that’s nice but the artifact was never missing in the first place. If you want to comment on something at least read the article first, or you’ll just be spreading misleading clickbait headlines even more.
I reckon I made a mistake here. I usually read the article but since what feels like almost 1 of 3 of shared articles here are locked behind paywalls I don’t bother anymore.
I sympathize. I’ve been caught out a couple of times by depending on autotldr as a substitute for reading the actual article. My own casual comparisons between autotldr and source articles suggest that autotldr is probably about 80% faithful to its source, on average.
I don’t know if it’s real or in my own mind, but it also seems to me that autotldr is faithful to the article inversely proportional to the quality of its source material. That is, the better and more complete the article, the more likely it is that autotldr trashes it.
Now that I’ve written it down, it strikes me that that may be an insurmountable problem. If we think of good articles as being “high information” and garbage articles as “low information”, summarizing will always be more likely to cause important “damage” the higher the information content. Thus, hitting 95% on a good article might trash it, while hitting 60% on a trash article is just fine. This might be especially true if you consider that the best articles might already be as compact as is reasonable.
Not only are good and compact articles few and far between. The problem is that nowadays, a lot of the article you click on will have a paywall so reading them is impossible ( unless using barley functioning services that claim to remove it) After a while, you expect the article to be paywalled and either move on or comment based on the provided info.
That, too! I’ve taken to using any autotldr as a substitute for a “proper” title and author summary. If the autotldr looks like there might be based on something I find interesting, I’ll go read the article.
It only happened with me once in lemmy and it contained the same amount of info but in a wordier version. I usually read the autotldr bot summary and if it’s not there I check the article but even then there’s a 50/50 chance it’s locked.
I gave an exemple above of why it’s actually plausible for the US to do so. Heck, if you want a real reason why " USA is always bad" just look at the map of USA backed coup.
As with everything concerning international law: it depends on the weapons and strategic alliances of each entity.
There are several reasons why China is ramping up ICBM production, the possibility of a country in debt “switching sides” in order to avoid payment, is likely one of them.
I’m no economist, but I’m pretty sure what we have now is 100% capitalism. It’s exactly how many people predicted capitalism would look like if given enough time.
Many years ago, a libertarian classmate asked me how I think the world would look like if corporations were unregulated. I told him (again, without being an economist) that corporations would probably become the new countries, that they would own everything like monarchs used to, as a few corporations monopolized everything. (I still find his answer funny: “And wouldn’t that be better?”. I just told him “Of course not!” thinking “WTF?”).
My point is that this idea that the current system is “worse than capitalism” and “capitalism is dead”, stems from some kind of idealization of what capitalism is supposed to be like, and not from the realities that many people have been pointing out throughout the XX and XXI centuries about how capitalism works and what its end-goal is. This is exactly what capitalism looks like. “Technofeudalism” seems like yet another way of not addressing the issue, like when people say “the problem is not capitalism! it’s crony capitalism!”. As if there is some form of capitalism that has ever put people over money.
Also:
It might look like a market, but Varoufakis says it’s anything but. Jeff (Bezos, the owner of Amazon) doesn’t produce capital, he argues. He charges rent. Which isn’t capitalism, it’s feudalism.
Again, I’m no economist, so someone correct me if I’m wrong, but I’m pretty sure the capitalists (i.e. the owners of the means of production) have never produced capital. The workers do. The capitalist have always taken the profits of their worker’s labour in exchange for using those means of production. You could call that “charging rent”.
There is nothing new about what’s going on right now, except on the superficial level, the specific tech that’s being used to achieve the monopolistic goals of any corporation. Given enough time, the inevitable concentration of power that capitalism leads to, will always look like feudalism.
I still find his answer funny: “And wouldn’t that be better?”
libertarians man, I swear
feels like every other one I meet just repeats what the rest of them say without even thinking about it. Reminds me of the video I saw where a leading libertarian presidential candidate said he supported driver’s licenses and the entire room booed him.
Every libertarian I’ve ever met is convinced that actors will somehow be way more rational and benevolent when laissez-faire economics allows the market to act freely, as though ‘zero regulations’ is not already the goal of every major corporation, in order to more completely fuck over everyone they touch.
Either that, or they’re convinced they’re a good enough prepper to avoid being killed or captured by the inevitable PMC armies that arise from the libertarian apocalypse.
Every libertarian I’ve ever met is convinced that actors will somehow be way more rational and benevolent when laissez-faire economics allows the market to act freely
But then they’ll use the exact opposite reason as to why forms of socialism won’t work; that people are selfish, greedy and exploitive.
For everyone else, loans will be forgiven no matter what after a maximum of 25 years, and Pierce said all borrowers should expect even more changes to the student loan system coming next summer.
Am I correct in thinking that no matter what, after 25 years whatever you would owe would be discharged?
It’s like hailing the medical jubilee as some kind big policy step forward when medical debt is still a massive anchor on Americans. You’re not doing anything to fix the problem. This is just aesthetics (pr)
Gangs are running profitable businesses inside the correctional facilities, and even have the keys to their own units. Recent rioting showed the extent of their power, posing a difficult challenge for the government of Daniel Noboa.
theguardian.com
Top