Wxnzxn

Ich würde mich ja auch damit zufriedengeben, wenn ermittelt wird in die Richtung, und dann festgestellt: Okay, gab keine politische Motivation für jetzt genau diese Tat. Aber das wurde ja sofort ausgeschlossen.

Und selbst dann: Die rechte Szene verbreitet generell eine Kultur, die Menschenleben den Wert abspricht, und solche Taten selbst in einem nicht direkt politischem Kontext vereinfacht. Wenn man das für den Islamismus so dauerhaft wiederholen kann, dann doch bitte auch hier.

As for my own opinion - I fully agree not to ditch it right now, unless you are super privacy-concerned.

If you are, and if you think Mozilla is a lost cause, then please, as a community, get together and organise a body that is financially and legally able to carry a FLOSS browser with its own web engine. Not saying this to be snarky or as a gotcha, I am just somewhat irritated by some people saying to ditch Firefox to then say the alternative is a Firefox fork with a team way too small to handle what is needed to maintain a browser project going into the future, if they couldn't build on the upstream code.

Because if you don't organise such an organisation, including eventually financially giving to that group if you have the resources, Mozilla will remain in the ambivalent position of trying to balance markets and ideals, with less and less of a bargaining chip on the 'ideals' side - and the web will continue to be further and further dominated by non-free software trying to make web standards more proprietary.

I mean, national weapons proliferation? That’s really not a concern with modern reactor tech, and they should know that. The article ignores the last 50 years of advancement in reactor design to present their arguments, and that really undermines their credibility.

The problem is: In real life, most nations want weapons potential as an added bonus to their expensive civil nuclear programs. This connects to the "Takes too long to build" and "Expensive" points.

Nuclear waste is also something, that even though ideas exist in spades, no one seems to have been able to solve. So I wonder: What are the real world hurdles, that have prevented all the talk of "we just need breeder reactors" or something similar, that I have been hearing for many years now, to manifest? Is the tech maybe not as easily implemented as thought? Is the cost/reward ratio too bad, so it would again connect to the expensive point?

Thing is: I am not fundamentally against Nuclear as part of a power mix, with climate change being the most pressing reality. But I think it's often presented as better as it is in the real world by people that are highly intelligent and knowledgeable in the basic physics and theoretical engineering parts - but then usually don't have answers for why, then, even states that don't have large anti-nuclear movements don't use it often, in real world circumstances.

I really don't think he works for "Russia" per se, he works for his clique of grifters and is genuinely deluded into believing Russia and Putin are stronger and more capable than they are - and better suited to benefit him personally. In the end, he works for himself and his close circle of capitalists, already speculating on a recession.

Nothing to lose but your chains, you say 🤔

Wenn das der Führer wüsste!

I think you might be onto something there, still remains in favour of individual capitalists against national capital - and is usually something, the state is supposed to prevent (it's jobs in capitalism are mostly preventing class conflict between bourgeoisie and proletariat just as much as conflict between individual capitalists hurting the economy at large).

But this now feels like 19th century economics from before understanding the nature of crises, and 19th century "sphere of influence" geopolitics all in one.

Here's hoping they end up shooting themselves in the foot by underestimating the consequences of their actions.

Alexander S. sei mehrfach vorbestraft. Und: „2018 sei gegen ihn wegen Verdachts des Verwendens von Kennzeichen verfassungswidriger Organisationen aus dem rechten Spektrum ermittelt worden. Zudem habe er online verfassungsfeindliche Inhalte geteilt.“ Die Polizei geht hingegen nicht von einem politischen Motiv aus.

Absolut lächerlich wäre es, wenn es nicht so traurig wäre.

The Nixon-era Richardson Waiver came about amid a push for more public engagement, with the waiver acting essentially as a workaround to amending the APA's exemptions. As Richard Brady, the assistant secretary for administration, wrote in the Federal Register at the time, implementing the Richardson Waiver "should result in greater participation by the public in the formulation of this Department's rules and regulations."

"The public benefit from such participation should outweigh any administrative inconvenience or delay which may result from use of the APA procedures in the five exempt categories," Brady wrote. The waiver also noted that the Health Department should use the "good cause" exception "sparingly."

Kennedy's new policy rescinds the Richardson Waiver entirely. He writes in stark contrast: "The extra-statutory obligations of the Richardson Waiver impose costs on the Department and the public, are contrary to the efficient operation of the Department, and impede the Department's flexibility to adapt quickly to legal and policy mandates."

So, just to make this clear, they didn't just not really implement their fabled transparency, they also walked back on the control mechanisms that were already in place.

That's a really cool timelapse! Makes me wish they had included if it's available for use with a free license :D

Ha, yeah, I'm usually working on something on one screen and having a browser open on the second one with some kind of video or something. Then,, whenever my ADHD causes me to lose focus on work, I check the feed for interesting stuff to promote. It works well, and I'd be easily distracted one way or the other.

It's fascinating, because the people behind him are genuine grifters and/or delusional ideologues, he can't even make proper politics in the interest of capitalists. (Just in the interests of some individual capitalists, against the interests of national capital accumulation).