yetAnotherUser

Just use exponential, income based fines.

Something like: 5% of your monthly salary or 0.05% of your networth, whichever is higher, adjusted by how much you were speeding of course.

Then double the fine for each infraction within one year after the first.

Audio seems to also be part of TP Vision.

https://www.tpvision.com/about-us

blablabla Philips TV and Audio brands.

That's the most generic name I've ever heard.

Why not "TwoWords"? Same pattern, but honest.

Wikipedia isn't important because of its data. Rather because of the fact it is continuously updated, extended, and fixed at a gigantic scale.

If Wikipedia ever dies, its information will lose relevance by the day. After a decade or two without a similar-scale replacement, will anyone even care?

Try not to derail please.

My comment only clarifies the Xcreet stating a German court has deemed the phrase "From the river to the sea" illegal was false. If you have anything to say about this decision from a legal POV feel free to comment, as I am not a lawyer and cannot properly evaluate this decision.

But whether or not the decision to classify Hamas as a terrorist organization is justified is not something I argued about.

This is false.

The Kammergericht Berlin (uppermost criminal court for Berlin) has ruled the reasoning of the lower instance why this phrase is not an illegal slogan was not sufficient and there were mistakes in the judgement. It has reopened the case and given it back to the same instance to re-evaluate.

There seem to be two main points:

2. The fact that a slogan is older than the terrorist organization does not preclude its classification as a distinguishing mark if the organization has adopted the already common phrase in such a way that it at least also appears as its distinguishing mark.

4. In principle, the grounds for the judgment must indicate the field of expertise of the expert consulted. If the academic training and even the area of activity in which the expert usually works remain unclear, this constitutes a factual and legal error in the judgment.

There are a couple more minor points from the full reasoning. For example, apparently the court argued even if the phrase were illegal, since the defendant claimed to be an opponent of Hamas they used the parole to display this opposition (analogous to reclaiming slurs) - but the court didn't require the defendant to demonstrate/elaborate on this opposition.

Here's the full decision, in German

https://gesetze.berlin.de/bsbe/document/NJRE001632041

The court has very much NOT ruled about the (il)legality of the phrase. Only that the lower court's reasoning was shit.

The US is already socialist though.

You see, the billionaires are in full control of the government. And since the billionaires stand for the workers, the workers are in direct control of the means of production. The dictatorship of the proletariat has been achieved, all hail to comrade Trump!

It's even better, with their current public health administration there is no way the demand for pharmaceuticals and medical tech will slow down soon.

An unhealthy, rich¹ population makes for good repeat customers after all.

¹upper 10%-20% who can afford expensive treatment

Stimmt, dass := auch für rekursive Definitionen verwendet wird habe ich nicht berücksichtigt. Ich hab kurz gebraucht um die Tautologie zu sehen, aber du hast recht, wenn man es als rekursiv ansieht bekommt man als "Definition" Σ = Σ raus (und die Menge Σ muss Kardinalität 1 haben - das macht es aber auch etwas schön, da man nun der Variable Σ eindeutig den Wert des einzigen Elements von Σ zuweisen könnte).

Σ := Σ_Σ Σ
<=> Σ = |Σ| * Σ
<=> 1 = |Σ|

Fünf Sigmas in einer Gleichung sind aber eindeutig zu viel, das könnte ja noch für Verwirrung sorgen!

Nö, gemeint war, dass ich alle Elemente der (abzählbaren) Menge Σ summiere und das Ergebnis in der Variable Σ speicher. Σ in der Summe ist dagegen nur die Zählvariable und soll zeigen, dass die zu summierenden Elemente nicht irgendwie verändert (bspw. quadriert), sondern nur stumpf aufsummiert werden.

Das meiste folgt zumindest irgendwie durch den Kontext: So kann das Σ in der Summe keine Menge sein, da man diese nicht addieren kann. Und das Σ unter dem Summen-Sigma ist eine Menge, denn man kann nicht einfach eine Zahl alleine dort stehen lassen. Ich glaub aber diese Notation für das Aufsummieren über eine Menge ist nicht Standard, habe es aber so schon gesehen. Und das := zeigt, dass das summeninnere Σ und das, das links definiert wird nicht dasselbe sind.

Das einzige Problem ist, dass man jetzt zweimal Σ hat: Einmal als Variable mit Zahlenwert und einmal als Menge. Dann muss man eben immer den Kontext betrachten, in dem Σ verwendet wird und danach entscheiden, welches jetzt gemeint ist.

Ich hoffe, das ist eindeutig genug.

Und der ist sich ja relativ sicher mit 0,12!