I only trust studded tiers (but i live close to a non-paved road that is always very icy during the end of the season).
But that said - there are lots of research that points towards that studded tires kill more people than they save lives because of the asphalt particles they cause.
But then there are people that claim that non-studded cars rely on at least 10% cars with studded tires to make the surface more rugged/rough.
Are they consistent? As a North American, I find it difficult to take EU/European countries’ stances on addiction seriously when they seem to be decades behind on reducing the prevalence of smoking and drinking, which almost certainly cause more practical harm than TikTok ever could.
> seem to be decades behind on reducing the prevalence of smoking and drinking,
the EU isn't a federal government. the UK, when it was in the EU did a full smoking inside ban, and tightened it after leaving.
It however had a massive problem with binge drinking and sorta didn't do much to stop that, apart from make it more expensive.
the netherlands has a smoking ban, but it was brought in later (I think). they had a different drinking culture so didn't have the same issues as the UK for drink.
That kind of issue is usually left to member states.
So social media is pure 'poison' with 0 positive impact but other addictive media like video games are tools with noble utility?
The World Health Organization has reached the exact opposite conclusion.
The ICD-11 doesn't include 'social media addiction.' It doesn’t exist clinically. What they did include is 'Gaming Disorder', classifying your 'sword' alongside substance abuse and gambling.
My point is governments could just as easily justify video game crack-downs with this same logic. Is that something we should be cheering on? Really?
The problem I have with the way the EU doles out these punishments is that they like to spring them on tech companies after years and years of radio silence and then suddenly it’s “hey TikTok, we just determined you’ve been breaking the law for years, pay us a couple billion please.”
Like, where were they years ago saying “hey TikTok, we think your design is addictive and probably illegal, you need to change or face penalties.” If TikTok continues to operate in the same manner despite a warning, sure, throw the book at them. Otherwise it just seems like the EU waits for years and years until a company is a big enough player and then retroactively decides they’ve been breaking the law for years. Doesn’t help the impression that they’re running a non-EU tech company shakedown campaign.
Tiktok spend a lot of money talking to EU regulators. They know shits coming down the track because these directives have to be put into law by eu members. that takes time.
> Doesn’t help the impression that they’re running a non-EU tech company shakedown campaign.
But thats not the point, companies shouldn't be doing stuff they know is harmful. Thats literally the point of regulation.
> Otherwise it just seems like the EU waits for years and years until a company is a big enough player and then retroactively decides they’ve been breaking the law for years.
Lol. It's never like this.
These companies are given plenty of warnings and deadlines. After years and years of ignoring them these companies get slapped with a fine and start playing the victim.
BTW at this point DSA has been in effect for three years
> because he was the first Black President in the history
That seems to have hit a sore spot in you. A black man, who could have thought?
Did you read the motivation?
"Extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples. The Norwegian Nobel Committee announced the award on October 9, 2009, citing Obama's promotion of nuclear nonproliferation[2] and a "new climate" in international relations fostered by Obama, especially in reaching out to the Muslim world."
As I recall it (somewhat vividly), the world took a sigh of relief after the tensions had been rising for many years between USA and the muslim world. After years of what GWB himself called "crusades" in Iraq and Afghanistan.
And Obama took action to soothe the tension.
That said. I do agree the prize was premature and a mistake in hindsight. (Obama himself was very surprised and humbled). But at the time, I too felt a big relief because people were actually talking to each other like human beings.
My point is not just that Nobel Committe offered the Nobel Peace Prize to Barack Obama, it is that: he went and accepted it in person, AFTER he had already certainly signed off on new wars (you can cross-check their timelines) almost immediately after he took oath as the new President. And he did sign off on new wars, during BOTH tenures.
So Obama is a hypocrite, who shamelessly accepted Peace Prize after starting wars and conflicts.
History tells us:
* Obama inherited the Iraq War and Afghanistan war, started during Bush Jr. regime. But to his credit, Obama ended them.
* However, Obama (USA) and NATO intervened in the Libya civil war and escalated it.
* Obama did the full scale war in Syria (but one can argue it was to combat terrorism).
* But under Obama regime, there was major increase in drone strikes in: Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia. These were highly controversial due to civilian casualties.
In a nutshell, Obama ended one war, he didn't initiate traditional large-scale wars, but he certainly expanded air, drone, and proxy conflicts.
That's why I said Obama is the only 2-term US President who kept his country at war during both tenures.
Now that is a dubious honor for any politician, whether he be black or white or any color in between.
Now Trump Sr. is following the bloodsoaked footsteps of Bush Jr. and Obama (in terms of warfare, I mean).
Trump has invaded and seized Venezuela, and he's threatening to do the same to Greenland. And he won't stop there. But bullies never do.
FYI, I am brown. But irrespective of skin color, I do not condone a warmonger getting or coveting a peace prize (a highly prestigious and huge amount involved at that: $1+ million dollars prize money).
Perhaps Americans and their NATO allies do not see such perspective, maybe because they think that blind patriotism and war-for-oils are greater than pragmatism and world peace.
Or maybe they think their country being a warmonger bully is justified, to "soothe the tensions".
In the annals of history, Obama and Trump will both be judged, on the same pedestal of warfare. And it won't paint them in a good picture.
The most powerful man in the world, must have a responsibility to help heal the world, not hurt it willy nilly.
The name, gender, skin color, race, religion - all these factors can pale to insignificance under the scrunity and expectations of the world.
Why do you think he got the Nobel Peace Prize in the first place? That's right: the expectations from the world, from what they thought is a pivotal positive change in history, due to unexpected (and hitherto considered impossible) ascension of a person of color to the highest position of authority in the world. They expected great things from him, because they knew he had the authority to do great things, and possibly, help heal a broken world.
He failed though, and proved to the world that he was just one more warmonger, in a long line of warmongers who have held that position of utmost power, to further break and wreak havoc on the struggling world.
Anyone in a supreme position of authority must be held to such idealistic yardsticks of expectations. Otherwise they will continue with such wrongdoings and continue to get away with it.
As the old saying goes:
A man is judged by his deeds. Or misdeeds.
To put it into perspective: the world is running out of time. Climate change, pandemics, etc., are going to bring misery to humanity. Now more than ever, we need the greatest most-idealistic leaders, who can work together to help the world and try to save humanity and this world before it is too late. That's what's at stake - the future of humanity and this beautiful bountiful world.
> To put it into perspective: the world is running out of time. Climate change, pandemics, etc., are going to bring misery to humanity. Now more than ever, we need the greatest most-idealistic leaders, who can work together to help the world and try to save humanity and this world before it is too late. That's what's at stake - the future of humanity and this beautiful bountiful world.
I can understand your disappointment, but at least from my perspective, Obama was the least bad compared to both his successor and predecessor most of those resepects, for example climate change.
And the wars you listed in GP - at least they were not out of greed. And he also got a lot of blame for not intervening in Syria.
https://ijmacd.github.io/rfc3339-iso8601/
reply