I have a lot of problems with our current government but you make it sound as if our current government was working towards a dictatorship. That would be a wild take...
Dissent is not outlawed, as long as you voice your opinion in a sane manner, e.g. don't chant for the death of other people.
Your first sentence is my whole problem with that framing: Germany is not anti free-speech. It just does not subscribe to the US/UK view that you are allowed to say anything. Maybe voice your opinion without threatening or inciting violence? Maybe the US would be better off if some prosecutor could actually charge Musk after showing the Nazi salute?
I disagree with most of your remaining text but this is too far away from the original topic, I will not comment on that.
German here: Due to our own history, for specific cases, speech is much more restricted here compared to the UK (or the US until recently). These are things like inciting violence or "gruppenbezogene Menschenfeindlichkeit" (hostility towards / discrimination of a group of people).
So if someone chants "Death, death to the IDF" they could be charged. It will not necessarily end in a conviction if it is considered an acceptable protest.
So if you are expected to do something that might be a crime in Germany, it does not seem unreasonable to deny entry. However, the decision should be transparent to the impacted people and they should have the option to fight against that decision. This is the actual infuriating part of this story.
But framing this as a "Free Speech Crackdown" is a very British/US take on our laws.
If you want something to really complain about: The German government still considers Israel an ally and still supports them. We learnt a lot from our own history but somehow "Genocide is bad regardless of who is doing it" did not make the list.
Permanently Deleted
According to reverse image search your friend is the 45 year old Rina Satō https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rina_Sat%C5%8D
That is an amazing little speech. I think except for the first sentence and the "Thank you" at the end every sentence contained misinformation on renewables. I wonder how long it took them to come up with this density of lies.
It does help with the immediate hunger, but it comes back strong once your body realises it was "cheated" out of calories. I am not sure I can withstand that for a long time. But maybe a short time would already be an improvement.
So thanks I will try to have carrots lying around at all times and try to eat them first between meals. Maybe it helps.
Also have you asked a smoker how it feels to slightly reduce the number of cigarettes per day?
Yes, that is often the case, but reducing it is the hard part. You need to keep it at a lower level for a while before your body adjusts.
Note that for some people it never adapts completely. Those people will always feel hungry or crave a snack and are never satisfied with the level of calories they actually need.
I did not, I know two people who do and they were impressed how easy it was to stick to their recommended diet. However, they are still on it, the interesting part is if you can get off without reverting your behaviour. Also they did not have any side effects so far, so lucky them.
I am currently holding my weight and don't plan on using it.
Losing weight is very, very, very easy once you make up your mind to do it and have a basic understanding of what food does to the body.
Nice if that is so easy for you. Let me tell you how that feels for me: As soon as my body does not get its usual amount of calories, it replies with relentless hunger. The kind that burns in your stomach and distracts you from everything else. The only thing my brain wants to think about is how to get more food and how tasty it would be. If I don't give in, I go into energy save mode: I feel exhausted, my body does not want to move or do anything that could cost it valuable calories.
For a lot of people losing weight is not easy. You could also tell a smoker that it is easy to quit smoking, just don't pick up a cigarette anymore.
This is why things like ozempic are used despite it's side effect. It gives you time to get in the habit of a healthy diet without the brutal hunger and hopefully your body accepts that diet when you reduce the dosage.
How stupid can a company be to give that much access to an LLM?
The typical science fiction doomsday AI scenarios always assume an intelligent AI. If the current trend continues humanity's last conversation will end something like this:
"You are absolutely right, I should not have used the nuclear launch codes president Trump entrusted me with to bomb every country on earth.
If you want, I can help you come up with a list of fun activities to do in a bunker."
The title of the post is a little misleading. The model presented here does not require many parts of a capitalist system. If you can own stuff and have a free market this model predicts extreme wealth inequality. This happens by pure chance.
The model is not a good argument against capitalism. It can be used as an argument for taxing rich folks and against the "trickle down" idea.
I think there is some confusion as to what this model represents. The linked article is not bad at explaining it but some things could be clearer.
First of all, the "money" in the model is not the cash you have at hand. It is the total value of all the things you own. This model does not need money and it also works if you exchange cigarettes for candy (as long as you can assign some worth to the objects).
It is also not about gambling. It assumes that every time you exchange goods with someone else, you can become richer or poorer (I like the example from the article: if you pay $200 for a watch that is worth $150, you lose $50, someone else gains $50).
It makes the extremely optimistic assumption that the chance to gain or lose money in a trade is equal. This is often obviously not the case in the real world. If you buy something from a supermarket, the owner wants to earn money, needs to pay their employees, needs to pay rent, ... so you know you pay more than the value of the goods you get.
Now this simplified and very optimistic model predicts that there is an exponential distribution of wealth and it predicts that repeated exchanges between a rich and a poor person will most likely result in the rich person getting richer and the poor person getting poorer.
What can we learn from that?1.) even under these very optimistic conditions money trickles up. The real world is stacked much more against you, making a trickle down effect unlikely (though not impossible, this model is a simplification). 2.) rich people (in the model but imo it applies to the real world as well) are not smarter or otherwise better than the average person. They were lucky.3.) Even if we remove a lot of the advantages rich people have in the world and construct a system that is seemingly "fair" (as in every one has the same chance) you still end up with super rich people. The only way to combat this is by redistributing money - tax the rich. Note that you still get an exponential distribution in the model but it becomes flatter.
What this model says nothing about is how the real world is stacked in favor of rich people. It tries to eliminate all these factors. So using this model to argue that inequality is built into the system (as the headline suggests) is somewhat strange. The model rather suggests that the inequality always arises from simple chance - One could maybe argue from it that we need to actively combat it (depends on the personal sense of justice if earnings due to luck should be redistributed).
I agree with you on the value creation. This model treats the economy as a zero-sum game. But the real economy is typically growing and this is ignored here.
Ein wunderbarer Schlusssatz:
Der Bedarf an zusätzlicher Arbeitskraft ist offensichtlich nicht groß genug, um Ideologie und Klientelpolitik zu überwinden.
Permanently Deleted
Looks like Dr who: https://youtu.be/Bb3bXgUEMk4
Permanently Deleted
That is a really interesting question. The exact acceleration depends on the density profile of the earth. But you are correct there is no gravitational pull in the center of the earth, it cancels out.
From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preliminary_reference_Earth_modelThis is actually true for every spherically symmetric shell - gravity cancels out everywhere inside the shell. Something probably every physics undergrad had to prove as homework. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shell_theorem for more information.
So when calculating gravity you only have to take into account the part of the earth below you, everything above you cancels out (yes the earth is not a perfect sphere but this is a pretty good approximation).
The end result for a large hole through the earth is oscillating around the center and slowing down until you are stuck in the middle. Oh and you would also be melting, it's still ~6000° C down there.
Seinen Müll in die Gegend zu werfen war vorher schon verboten. Die Verstöße werden aber nicht direkt angegangen, sondern man entscheidet sich für eine lächerliche Kleinstmaßnahme, welche dann auch noch potentiell Leute ärgert, die gar keine Müllentsorgung in der Natur betreiben.
Verboten aber wird trotzdem gemacht. Das so zu ahnden, dass es hilft ist unrealistisch. Die festen Deckel helfen wenigstens (und ist keineswegs lächerlich), aber ja nervt dann halt alle.
Es werden auch ganze PET-Flaschen aus dem Fenster des Ein-Personen-SUV geworfen, welchen Effekt hat ein befestigter Deckel dagegen?
Gegen solche Deppen gar nichts. Hat aber nichts mit den Deckeln zu tun, völlig andere Zielgruppe.
Mich stört es eben mehr als ein klein bisschen, und ich finde es schade, dass meine Perspektive wiederholt kleingeredet wird. Es kann sein, dass ich da sensorisch empfindlicher bin als die meisten Menschen, aber Inklusion bedeutet eben genau solche Sichtweisen mit einzubeziehen.
Vorschläge:
Alles zumutbare kleine Änderungen am eigenen Verhalten. Es wird nicht "kleingeredet". Es wird durch die Maßnahme niemand arm, verliert seine Wohnung oder Rente. Die Auswirkungen sind objektiv klein.
Ist unser Anspruch an die Politik so aufgeweicht, dass wir uns lieber mit Augenwischerei abfinden wollen, als echte Maßnahmen zu fordern? Etwas wie Plastikdeckel sehe ich in der Prioritätenliste weit hinten.
Größere Maßnahmen fordern schließt sich nicht aus. Aber ganz richtig, niedrige Priorität. Da die Deckel so umgesetzt sind kann man es ja dann jetzt so lassen wie es ist.
Ein nicht kleiner Teil der Menschen war offensichtlich nicht dazu in der Lage den Deckel zu behalten und ordentlich zu entsorgen. Jetzt müssen alle eine kleine Unannehmlichkeit aushalten um die Umwelt zu schützen.
Ich finde es schade wenn jetzt wieder eine an sich sinnvolle Regelung abgeschafft wird, weil es manchmal ein klein bisschen stört.
Ist unsere Gesellschaft so festgefahren, dass wir nicht einmal sowas triviales wie befestigte Plastikdeckel akzeptieren können um unseren negativen Effekt auf unsere Umwelt ein kleines bisschen zu reduzieren?
Das kann ich schon eher nachvollziehen als die übertriebene Aussage, bin aber durchaus der Meinung, dass der Preis eher eine positive Wirkung und durchaus Bedeutung hat.
Es finden sich auf der Liste eben auch sehr viele Personen (und Organisationen), die überzeugend für eine bessere Welt eintreten. Man kann mit Sicherheit über einige Preisträgys diskutieren und einige weitere sind völlig inakzeptabel (z.T. erst nach Vergabe) - aber der Friedensnobelpreis wird oft vergeben um eine aktuelle Entwicklung zu unterstützen oder mehr Aufmerksamkeit zu verleihen. Damit geht man das Risiko ein, dass die Situation kippt oder sich die geehrten Personen doch anders verhalten als erwartet.
Wenn man den Preis nur an "sichere" Personen oder Organisationen vergibt, dann entfaltet er auch weniger Wirkung. Dann sind die Preisträger nur noch sowas wie das WFP oder Ärzte ohne Grenzen. Auf jeden Fall der Auszeichnung würdig - aber es hat dann keinen direkten Effekt.
Aber ja, Kissinger dafür zu ehren, dass er jetzt mal mit den Kriegsverbrechen aufhört, die er selbst zu verantworten hatte erscheint mir auch ein Tiefpunkt.
While I agree that the current official stance on Israel is insane, it is not the majority opinion in Germany.
Do we still have a problem with Antisemitism? Sadly yes, especially now since some people project the behaviour of Israel on German Jews which is absolutely crazy. But I would argue that the overwhelming majority has a positive or neutral view on Judaism.
You sound like you have met too many crazy people from my country. But the loudest people are often not the majority. There are regular surveys on issues like these and I would classify your interpretation of German society as a fringe theory.