Nice try... but there are too many hobby historians involved in fantasy rpg's to not know that a D4 is THE original die. Much older than that stupid cube we -even with all our modern tech- can barely bring to be really balanced and rolling well.

Not in the detail I would have liked. So declaring it an immidiate risk to US security is seemingly possible, but what are the standards there? Who can check the justification? What pre-defined guidelines for such an assessment exist?

Renewables are already well researched. It’s up to governments to enforce their use if they want.

Actual reality: Renewables are already well researched and by far the cheapest way of production. It's up to governments to stop blocking them for their fossil fuel buddies.

Do such idiot GMs really exist or are they just made up for the memes?

How dare they to make commiting an illegal act of war against an ally sound like a bad thing...

Das einzige "Elend" für dass ich die TAZ mitverantwortlich gemacht habe, ist das Versagen deutscher Medien, im speziellen der TAZ.

Klar, ich könnte dafür die Hamas verantworktlich machen... oder Außerirdische... Nur haben die eben nichsts damit zu tun, dass die TAZ zwei Wochen lang tendenziös, polarisierend und einseitig berichtet, um sich dann plötzlich über genau diese Art der Berichterstattung zu empören.

So you like to pretend Windows rewriting your EFI entries and needing to be fixed is normal?

This has nothing to do with not being able to fix it in seconds. But with Windows indeed being destructive and trying to damage dual boot setup. That's not a feature because you know how to handle it.

What do you mean with "these people aren't Ukrainians". Do you believe this additional million does not need to be registered? That they don't cost money and that they bring their own housing and so somehow don't add to asylum seekers also needing a roof over their head?

But good that you at least mention them as it fits my point: Nobody actually ever mentions Ukrainians in the context of a million taking refuge here from the war. They are loudly talking about how the government is supposed to stop illegal immigration. As if it's illegal immigration that is driving this. And they pretend that -to paraphrase the popular narrative- the government needs to stop happily inviting every illegal immigrant. Fss... nobody does. It's in the word. They are illegally here. But those people know very well that they are not actually talking about illegal immigrants when they use these words (or some euphemism like "irregular migrants"). They try to conflate asylum seekers and refugees legally here, with some (basically, if you look at the scope they are pretending, imaginary numbers of) illegal immigrants with all immigrants and foreigners to fuel their xenophobic narratives.

I don't say that there aren't actual issues. Not giving some a way to integrate for example and having "eternal refugees" that will never see their country of origin suddenly becoming safe yet are kept on temporary permissions to stay again and again and again forever is one. You either give them a chance to integrate even when you only kept them originally because they could not be returned without risking their lifes (it's been a decade and more for some...) or you just forcefully deport them to their original homes anyway and see them killed. And no, I don't consider the latter option valid. Neither does the German constitution and everything we know about human rights.

What I'm saying is that the narratives that are pushed instead are made up and intentionally twisted to never talk about one group of people with actually fixable issues, but just a wild hodge podge of xenophobia disguised as a valid concern. And they are clearly build with a different goal in mind than "stopping illegal immigration" (as if there is anyone not agreeing) or "fix the amount of refugees". They could handle these with better integration instead of just hoarding them and pretending the problem will solver itself over time, they can fix the issue with clearer and enforced guidelines who can stay and who will be send back. But those people don't actually want that. They are the same guys trying to remove any existing integration flawed as it may be already. They are the ones not actually arguing for more efficient asylum system where people get processed faster, the ones accepted get more help to integrate and the others are returned more quickly. Nope, they are trying to cut asylum laws and prevent anyone from legally applyiing in the first place. (Or to quote one of our right-wing morons: "Who cares on which border refugess get shot?") And that's the reason they also try to conflate every form of migration and legitimate refugees with illegal immigration (usually of course adding that they are just social leeches wanting to live care free off of Germany welfare anyway - Fun fact: that populist morons now leading the biggest conservative party has also tried if he can talk about Ukrainian welfare tourists or if the backslash is too heavy... and then quickly walked back with some non-apology).

Just today the biggest public broadcaster published a story about how chancellor Scholz "talked out against 'irregular immigration'". But that's bullshit. There are basically only two defintions of the word: the official one (=illegal immigrants) and the right-wing dog whistle. When they tell us this in response to a sensible comment of basically "Yes, the asylum laws and rights of legitimate refugees should not be weakened. There's no discussion here. But obviously illegal immigrants should be send back." what do they want to tell us exactly? Are they trying to present the fact that our chancellor is -like everyone else- against illegal immigration as some kind of news? Or are they intentionally using the dog-whistle version instead so it becomes a story? A false one obviously, too. But a story they want to tell us. I think you can answer that one yourself...

The moment you show me the media/political discussion actually talking about sensible measures to fix some immigration issue (so... better integration for some, being send back quicker for others, coupled with ideas that are not clearly in violation of human rights -and the constitution obviously-) I will bite. As long as this is not the discussion I will also not acknowledge it as talking about "problems with refugees" as that's just a pretense, not the actual thing they talk about.

But there's more about this. It's the ambassador to Japan. And they may also not be friends but have to somewhat live with both being in the pacific area. So insulting China from a position in Japan is indeed questionable.

What would you say if the French ambassador to the US would be constantly in US media stirring shit up between Mexico and the US by insulting them. It's just bad taste in such a position when your own country is on the other side of the world basically.

For some countries (looking at you, USA) it would have an additional benefit. Cops should do their actual job, not lurk in some corner hoping to catch someone speeding. That's something easily done automatically, so why waste man power for this shit...

But here is the fun fact: Basically all countries going for nuclear instead (with the exception of France, and even they need to scrap the bullshit about 6 new reactors and admit that the full set of 6 plus the 8 optional ones is their required minimum) are doing exactly that: having no actual plan for zero co2 emissions but just building some for symbolic reductions. If they actually had any workable plan they would need to plan and build much more (often by a factor of 10 even) just to cover the minimum base load for their projected demand in 2050+.

And no, what Germany got into this mess is intentional sabotage by conservatives to keep coal alive. Please look at these graphs and extrapolate the amount of renewables we would have if first the solar, then the wind power industry wasn't destroyed intentionally via overregulation. Gas as a transition energy and switching the existing plans over to hydrogen used for storage is a perfectly well plan. Even with today's gas prize as they -unlike other countries- don't use gas for regular production anyway. It's only used for short-term peak production to adapt to fluctuations. The actual problem is the screwed up European energy market that makes you pay the gas price for all energy, no matter how few (or much) you actually use.

Contrary to popular narrrative a potential gas shortage was never a problem for Germany's electricity production. The problem was heating. And the bottle neck there is not electricity but the ability so get and install the amount of heat pumps needed alternatively (I have personally seen waiting times of nearly a year 5 years ago already...). We like do forget that Germany alone makes up nearly 20% of the EU in households.

Who is even wearing 6 different mono-colored watches at the same time just to make a point?