It actually worked better than expected. It’s simply a long process.

Snd until we have a good, permanent solution where to store nuclear waste that won’t be an issue for hundreds of future generations, it’s simply irresponsible to air for nuclear instead of renewables

Only thing I use Google for is Maps, and by now that would be easy to replace.

Sure, that’s a fair opinion. I just don’t share it. I wouldn’t have known about this video in the first place. Also I don’t care to use AI summaries.

Coincidentally I was also a fan of the described functionality on batteries and I have used it gladly and without hurting myself. So that clearly makes me different from the vast majority of people here in the comments.

I may have been just as happy with the original article the video is based on, who knows. But since that wasn’t shared here I preferred this one over the video.

Tbf I hate watching videos, so I found it useful.

I’ve worked quite extensively with youth, including in radicalisation prevention. Children model their lives after adults. The term role model is simply different for children and for older people.

You are mixing up a lot of terms here without actually defining for what age group you want to apply them. So yeah, I can say with a lot of confidence that the death of young children is horrible, but it’s not the driving factor behind radicalisation. The reaction of the people around is.

My point is that children lack the understanding of what caused this. It’s the reaction of the adults / role models in their life that will radicalise them.

Children won’t be radicalised by that. Their parents would be. And people the age of their parents.

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/13523260.2024.2384004#abstract

It’s okay to say lazy. Not everything is ADHD. You’re just lazy.

China has zero interest in harming Russia at this stage. The US and its allies are investing massive resources in Ukraine, so is Russia. Russia needs chinas goodwill and tech to keep going, that’s a win. The US can’t use the money it puts into Ukraine into the pacific, that’s another win.

China is happy if everything stays as it is

It’s never good to compare one genocide to the other. If you did and applied consequence to it, the current situation in Gaza would come show up somewhere in the middle of all ongoing atrocities, behind Sudan and Yemen.

Instead, efforts should be made to stop all of these wars regardless of location and political ideology.

It’s a multiple choice question. Also the headline is false. The question is:

“What action relating to the state of Israel is prohibited in Germany?"

The correct answer is “publicly calling for the destruction of Israel".

That headline is false. You do not have to affirm Israel’s right to exist.

You have to know that it’s illegal to call for the destruction of the state of Israel. That’s not the same.

You call them police proceedings, but it’s the public prosecutor’s office (Staatsanwaltschaft) that is calling the shots. Regardless, the article also states that two of the highest courts called the Verwaltungsgerichte have decided that the phrase isn’t illegal per se.

Of course it is illegal in the context of glorifying Hamas terrorism, as it should be. That also puts a responsibility on organisers of protests to make sure that they distance themselves from people who are ambiguous in their distancing from hamas, that’s a positive thing in my opinion.

I’m not denying my privilege, but I’d argue that I’m more aware of my biases than you appear to be

https://verfassungsblog.de/zwischen-fluss-meer-und-strafbefehl/

Nope, not true. Stop spreading misinformation just because you want to get public praise.

You will not automatically get deported, but it will be made easier to deport foreigners who are praising terrorism. There’s a big difference. You always have legal recourse against this.

That’s important because the phrase “from the river to the sea” is not illegal praise of terrorism in Germany, even if you may have heard so from your equally misinformed bubble. While its use shows that the person saying has a big problem with accepting that a complex situation will certainly not be reflected in a catchy sentence, and that it may be time for that person to just excuse them from a discussion they are very likely not a part of, it is not illegal.

Why? Because courts will have to make the decision whether its use in a specific context was illegal, and more often than not it won’t be.

You’re missing the point. It doesn’t matter what you or I believe, if a person has accepted that a big corporation knows everything about them and use this as a reason not to take action or prevent them from knowing more, then the Doctorow quote doesn’t apply.

That doesn’t work for the “the big companies know everything about me anyway” line though

I replied to the wrong comment