They're left-liberal which yes isn't socialist by a long shot, OTOH it's well within the overton window, thus actually able to be an electoral success. It's also a position which is completely underserved because neolibs captured everything even close to centre.

Oh, for all the yanks out there: Left-liberal is when UBI (because no proper employment market without uncomplicated social net) and business politics for SMEs instead of multinationals and plenty of antitrust with plenty of teeth. Petite bourgeois with at least a form of class consciousness. And gay marriage of course.

Are you, by any chance, letting the perfect be the enemy of the not completely evil?

Link to segment. And, no, not only didn't Liechtenstein not cross the threshold they're not even in the EU they can't vote.

Even more up to date numbers straight from the commission.

Also things like selling their loss leaders below purchase price. The kicker is that they still lost the price war they started even though the German discounters kept things legal.

Then there was something about not wanting to publish their balance sheets as they're required to, shutting out the works council from stuff that the works council has a right to be involved in, the list is endless. Not only did they not have a German CEO to manage all that stuff they apparently didn't even have German lawyers.

Mozilla is not a browser producer, it's a general internet charity that earns money by producing a browser. Most of their income goes to charity and reserves of which they have about 1bn -- roughly four times as much as wikipedia just for a sense of scale, wikipedia doesn't do any business deals to get at cash but instead does annoying donation drives.

They could scale down significantly while still keeping firefox development ongoing, they probably wouldn't have much issue finding enough donations to fund development, but the strategy seems to be building reserves and diversify commercial income, things like the revenue share they get from pocket for sending people to ad-ridden pages.

When you're currently donating to Mozilla you're not donating towards Firefox: Mozilla-the-company can't receive funds from Mozilla-the-foundation, those donations are going to charity work.

And, to make this clear: None of this is a grand revelation, or new, or outrageous, it's basically always been like that and it's always been a perfectly proper way to run a charity. Most of the recent pushbacks comes from people hating that Mozilla funds stuff like getting women into STEM, being outraged that the wider Mozilla community is not keen on having a CEO which opposes gay marriage (very staunchly so), etc.

The way to use these kinds of systems is to have the judge came to an independent decision, then, after that's keyed in, the AI spits out theirs and whichever predicts more danger is then acted on.

Relatedly, the way you have an AI select people and companies to get spot-checked by tax investigators is not to show investigators the AI scores, but mix in AI suspicions among a stream of randomly selected people.

Relatedly, the way you have AI involved in medical diagnoses is not to tell the human doctor results, but suggest additional tests to be made. The "have you ruled out lupus" approach.

And from what I've heard the medical profession actually got that right from the very beginning. They know what priming and bias is. Law enforcement? I fear we'll have to ELI5 them the basics for the next five hundred years.

QR codes can contain just about anything, including the URI (doi:foobar) form that the tattoo uses. QR codes themselves will probably go the way of USB: In a million years there's going to be someone looking at the driver code saying "you sure we can't get rid of those early versions" just for someone to chime in saying "your keyboard still uses USB1".

Don't forget bailing out hospitals etc. when people invariably default on their medical debt. On expensive ER bills that only exist because people couldn't afford to visit a GP five years earlier and get some cheap off the shelf preventive medicine.

Also, and this really shouldn't be underestimated: Laws concerning everything from food regulations over transportation polity to sports promotion that don't take people's health into account because health is a private matter. With socialised healthcare, suddenly all those new fancy bike paths have a tangible ROI in yet another public budget (not just the transportation agency's one, that is).

This is exactly it: The best treatment for opioid addiction is tapering them over time (though with the likes of fentanyl you want to downgrade to heroin) flanked by socio-psychological treatment. Crime suddenly plummets, when not having to fear for their dose and life addicts become functional, some of them might be too far gone to get the curve but it's still going to be cheaper overall to society because pharmaceutical-grade heroin is cheap as fuck and, as said, you're slashing crime. Heroin is not a drug that, in itself, makes you non-functioning, or would be particularly dangerous to health -- gotta monitor respiration while under but that's it, it doesn't kill your organs or something.

Meth and crack are quite a bit harder in the sense that tapering doesn't really work, but it's still not a good idea having addicts running around looking for copper to sell and dicks to suck. Similar issue as with alcohol, actually: Tapering doesn't work there, either, but if you can get people stabilised and away from binge drinking things suddenly look way better and possibilities open. That is, instead of getting up, noticing that there's no alcohol, then hustling for a bottle or two of liqueur to binge come evening, you get them on a regular glass of wine every few hours, enough to stave off withdrawal and suddenly they can actually develop clarity instead of being either restless or completely plastered.

Palestinians are quite liberal and progressive compared to other Arabs, and being gay is legal in the West Bank -- that doesn't mean that there's no issues, this article about a planned LGBT youth camp gives a good impression. There's allies, but keep your head down and out of sight of religious nutjobs. It's pretty much the same thing atheists do over there: Plenty of them around with all that secular history but the religious nutjobs are simply too rabid to allow public discourse about the topic. It's way easier to go the "secular Muslim" route: Fast, but not for Allah.

In Gaza the legal situation is undetermined (scholars disagree on whether British mandate law prohibiting gay sex still applies) but anyway Hamas is in power, they instituted a religious police, tried to enforce headscarfs, go after male hairdressers cutting women's hairs without any legal basis etc. don't look at the statute book Hamas doesn't care and they're crazy. Also you don't want to go to Gaza right now. Also, you probably can't even if you're an UN aid worker.

The average age of the population in Gaza is 18.

Of note: The blockade of Gaza is going on for a good 16 years, now. About half of Gazans grew up under that regime and they're just about reaching fighting age now, already having gone through "what might I possibly be in the future" age and, well, there's not exactly many options are there.

He's probably hyper self conscious about people ripping into Teslas over their clearances (with inconsistencies measured in millimetres). But, no, instead of saying "VW can produce stuff that doesn't look like it fell from a truck and you will figure it out, too" he's going overboard.

Richard Wagner

Also the guy Nietzsche ghosted because he couldn't stand his antisemitism.

...sorry random association the first existentialist gets maligned all too often. "Talks about nihilism and how it needs to be overcome == nihilist", yeah sure.