Is it?

Just use Linux 6.12 with LTS until 2029 and Super LTS until 2036.

Keep in mind Kagi is US-American though.

If you’re riding on a bumpy path in the woods, helmets make a lot of sense.

But most roads do not have tree roots or rocks around.

Just like how after 9/11 muslims could’ve done more to distance themselves from the attacks, right? Clearly it’s their own fault for the rise in islamophobia.

So does every number:

6.000000…

Quoting, parodies etc. is explicitly regulated and very tightly regulated. I can only speak for Germany here, other EU countries have different laws but I know they tend to be on the strict side as well.

For example, parodies must explicitly comment on the original work to be permitted. Modifying the lyrics in a funny way alone is not enough to be a parody.

Same with quotes: They are only permitted if they serve a scientific, informative or analytical purpose. Quotes for illustration purposes or entertainment are explicitly not permitted.

In 2021, “pastiches” were legalized which allows for some entertainment use of derivative copyrighted works but there is no legal precedent yet that defines their scope.

Fair use is a US-only concept. Western EU countries tend to have much stricter copyright laws.

I didn’t watch the video but the answer should just be yes? Literally just create a new law that punishes online deepfake sex crimes.

Sample wording:

(1) Whoever publishes realistic manipulated sexual content involving the likeness of a concrete person against their consent will face a punishment of up to 2 years in prison.
(2) In case the offender intended to cause distress or publicly humiliate the victim, the punishment will be between 6 months and 4 years.

That’s pretty much it. Maybe adjust the punishments a little but they feel reasonable to me.

Fucking category theorists thinking they’re doing “math” when it’s clearly cocaine.

The only question is: What is a caine?

Gambling addiction has one of the highest suicide rates out of any addiction, so I’m pretty sure the capitalist gambling companies right now cause more death than illegal organizations could.

upping or lowering its production is really fast

No??? Nuclear is by far the slowest to moderate. So slow, energy prices used to be significantly lower at night in Germany due to the nuclear power plants not being able to adjust to the lowered demand.

It is fairly obvious in the future energy consumption will adjust to the production, instead of vice versa like it is right now. I’m talking decades, the time to build maybe 1.5 - 2 sets of new nuclear reactors. That way you need at most hours of grid storage instead of days.

And about the scary “sun and wind is subject to variations” part - of course it is. Which is why it’s best to also invest into significantly expand the European power grid to adjust. When there’s a power drought somewhere it is very likely somewhere else produces more than enough energy to export. As an added benefit, this makes the grid much more resilient.

Centralized power generation is not a sensible thing to invest into in today’s age anyway. Putin would merely have to send a double digit number of drones/rockets to cause blackouts. Compare that to a fully decentralized energy grid where for instance every house has solar panels and battery storage.

Also, not a single nuclear accident is preventable. Why was the Fukushima reactor not designed to handle its event? Because it’s cheaper. Why did Chornobyl explode? Because it was a cheap reactor type. Three Mile Island (to be fair, that’s pretty long)? Because again design failures due to cost cutting. And cost cutting refers to being able to humanly construct a nuclear reactor - if every scenario were considered no plant could be built. It’s like trying to design a plane that will never ever crash - impossible.

Take a look at pretty much any study calculating the probability of major nuclear accidents (aka “beyond-design-basis event”).

The German TÜV performed such a calculation - funded by the government - in 1980 which was then used to argue FOR nuclear safety and expand Germany’s nuclear reactors (as the oil crisis a couple years prior was reason to diversify away from oil). The study did not include human error/negligence or sabotage but all possible weather events (flooding, earthquake, lightning strikes into electric equipment), parts failing and an airplane strike.

The result: A reactor core meltdown occurs - in Germany - once every 10,000 years. Extrapolating this to 400 reactors worldwide - not sure how their safety compares to 1980’s Germany - would result in one meltdown every 25 years.

Coincidentally Chornobyl and Fukushima just so happened to be 25 years apart. Substiture Chornobyl with Long Island if you want to exclude incompetent Soviet safety engineers.

The study:

https://www.grs.de/de/aktuelles/publikationen/deutsche-risikostudie-kernkraftwerke-eine-untersuchung-zu-dem-durch

Besides: Any money invested into nuclear today is money not invested into solar, wind turbines or battery storage. Why waste money on nuclear reactors that will start operating by 2040 when you can generate hundreds of TWh of electricity with the same money spent on renewables beforehand?

The rating system isn’t meant to be taken literally though. It’s expected that parents make an informed choice based on the maturity of their child. The ratings are recommendations and as far as I know only actually enforced by stores/sellers and cinemas.

You could replace Austria, it has even more fascists (per capita) and is even more corrupt.

There’s the Ubisoft store too.

Not that I would ever use it. But it is European.

But once you worsen a problem enough, you are the primary cause.

Conspiracy nuts are harmless until their opinions become more widespread. The root cause is social media illiteracy but if you have nation states acting as fire accelerants every single sparking wire can result in an inferno.

Oh, and this didn’t even start in the 90s. The Soviets didn’t spread HIV conspiracy theories for fun and games.

Why did Russia bother doing anything if it would’ve happened regardless apparently?

To be fair, school lunches aren’t free in Germany.

Technically they could be considered free if you factor in monthly child benefits (currently at 259€ per child) or parents further qualify for social assistance.

You just do not need to go 100% renewable immediately. As per the pareto principle: 80% of the result can be achieved with 20% of the effort.

Put up enough renewables NOW to achieve 80% green, decentralized energy. But since we are still very far off from that result, there is no need to waste money for nuclear power plants. We don’t even have enough renewables to result in negative energy prices, so there is no need for batteries just yet. Guess what happens the moment energy prices do become negative for large parts of the year:

1. Companies will invest into battery storage to store and later sell this energy.
2. Conventional power plants cannot operate for half the year or longer.
3. Energy consumption by companies and households will start to adher to the energy production with the proliferation of smart energy grids.

Nuclear cannot be adjusted to demand at all by the way. It is extremely inflexible and does not handly varying demand well. Varying demand that will occur in the coming decades due to smart energy grids becoming a thing.

You also haven’t explained why the only countries who build nuclear in significant numbers also possess nuclear weapons. Nobody builds nuclear power plants for the climate.

As long as we aren’t at regular negative energy prices, it is more cost effective and better for the climate to invest into renewables. Once we are there, nuclear power plants are economically unviable due to their aforementioned inflexibility.

The only economical stopgap until we are fully renewable will be flexible emergency gas power plants that run for a couple of days/weeks per year at most. And due to the fact they are an order of magnitude cheaper than nuclear, you have vastly more resources for expanding battery storage and renewables.

Because fossil fuel companies are lobbying for it. Renewables are cheap and quick to set up, every single solar panel immediately lowers the demand for oil/gas/coal a tiny bit.

Nuclear energy on the other hand takes ages to set up and is far more expensive per kWh than renewables. Every single euro spent on nuclear is one euro taken away from renewables.

Oh, and in countries with nuclear weapons programmes, nuclear energy is a way to stealthily increase the military budget.