So why did gp talk about the alt right?also I disagree, there is a binary left right in Europe too. Unless it's for social stuff then most parties are on the right in Europe lol
It's wildly insane to assume one can simply "know" who "needs help".
It's even worse to assume that a person - regardless of whether they can or can't easily tell - would be motivated to find out if they weren't handing out own food or money.
As others have mentioned among non-native services (not sure if that's acceptable to you, but it is to some) there are many 3rd party solutions that work better with NFSv4.
It's going to vote soon. It isn't just "decided" at the EU level, there is a vote. Voting power is proportional to EU citizenship and to pass it needs a supermajority. It's not just Finland which opposes this either (they have a small population - 5.6M citizens). Larger countries like Germany (83M citizens) also oppose it but I also don't think they've quite so clearly stated they will vote against.
Austria (9.1M) and Estonia (1.4M) are also mentioned and if they all vote "No", that is a bit over 99M people which is only 22% of EU citizens. So not enough to prevent it passing. No idea where the rest of the EU bloc sits on Yes/No, I'm hoping it does *not* pass.
Quoting from the translation where they explain how it works:
"EU countries will vote on the proposal at the end of October. At that time, the proposal will go through, if it is not opposed by a number of countries representing a total of at least 35 percent of EU citizens."
There are indeed majority requirements to pass a directive at EU Level.
In this case in the Council (of member states) of the European Union needs to pass with 55% of the member states agreeing and they need to have 65% of the EU population.
In addition, the (directly elected) European Parliament will need to pass the proposed directive with a simple majority.
So calling the "vote" unneeded is not true at all.
The Council has veto powers (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_of_the_European_Union). If the proposed law needs unanimous agreement of the Council, it makes sense to talk of Finland's vote in that context. Even if only a simple majority is needed, it would be at least a sign that there is resistance in the Council.
It's also worth noting that the US Senate was originally not elected either. The transition to an elected Senate was triggered by two states individually deciding to elect their Senator, then the rest followed. The same could happen in the EU, which would make it much more democratic. And it would only take one country to make the first move.
Interesting about the US senate! I'm not sure that an EU member state can unilaterally make a similar decision though. The treaty is pretty clear that the council is made up by government ministers:
> Citizens are directly represented at Union level in the European Parliament.
> Member States are represented in the European Council by their Heads of State or Government and in the Council by their governments, themselves democratically accountable either to their national Parliaments, or to their citizens.
It's true that the wording runs like that. But here's the angle: the Council is the body intended to represent the member states, so the member states are the ones who get to decide who is going to represent them in council. At the moment, that's usually the minister for the subject under discussion. It's true that on those occasions where it is the head of state, you probably can't get round sending your head of state (and probably wouldn't want to). But if a member state decides they are going to define their own rules such that it's an elected representative that gets sent the rest of the time, the rest of the EU shouldn't be able to overrule it, because that would defeat the purpose of the role being one that is under control of a member state.
I don't know why you would bother to reply if you are going to assume that level of ignorance.
Yes,the parliament exists. I have voted for members of it. It is the most democratic part of the EU. The rules give it much more influence than hereto. But it has problems.
1) The Council, which is not so democratic, can veto it
2) The parliament is huge, so each member has very limited influence
3) Because of 2) it has not succeeded in creating an EU 'public sphere' or 'demos'. The 'parties' are just agglomerations of national parties. When you think of EU politicians, who are the big names? They are a) national figures and , b) Commissioners. Rarely do parliamentarians become well known,and usually for some other reason (Eg Nigel Farage).
I stand by my statement that the EU would be much more democratic if the council were elected. Firstly, do you really think the US was not more democratic when the Senate became elected? Secondly, it would mean that there were 'big figures' that get elected at an EU level. That would get the pubic much more interested and that is a significant part of what it means to be democratic. It doesn't matter how democratic the rules are of nobody cares.
(can't reply directly to mrmanner, so adding this here)
Formally, yes, the Council represents democratically elected governments, and obviously people have heard of their national politicians. But that doesn't mean it makes the EU democratic. Some things to think about:
- When was the last time, if ever, you considered voting against someone at your national level because of how they might vote in the EU council?
- How much do you hear about EU council votes in the media, vs national parliamentary votes? (the OP is relatively unusual IMO)
The Commission is definitely undemocratic. But it has less power than many believe. It has the right to make proposals, but no power over whether they get adopted. It's more of a civil service in many ways. In my view, the council is the structure that has the most power in the EU. And the national politicians who operate it are content that it remains avenue for back-room deals whose results they can blame on the Commission, rather than being accountable to an electorate.
It's tricky. I think it makes sense that the national policy (set by member states government) is represented in their decisions in the council.
Otherwise you could have the weird situation where the elected government and the elected council members work against each others because of mismatched voting cycles (or personalities).
That sounds like a recipe for legslative lockup.
In the end most fundamental EU "laws" need to be implemented into national law by the same government that is now sending its members to the council.
A similar system is in use her in Germany, where the state government send a representative to the upper house.
The council is made up by national governments, directly or indirectly elected in elections which typically have far higher participation and better media coverage than the EU parliament elections. I like the EU and I agree that the parliament is important, but I’m not so sure the council is “not so democratic”. Everyone knows the name of their government ministers, many know the names of their national parliamentarians.
The commission is where we have the major lack of democracy currently. Not sure how to improve without a massive transfer of power to the Union (e.g. an elected president), but it’s a problem worth solving.
Have the electorate vote for who gets sent to represent them at the EU council.
The council isn't exactly a 'Cabinet' right now - in fact, the Commission is more like a Cabinet than the council. Electing a commissioner would be another option, but the head of the commission can reject them, so it's not under the control of the member state.
My understanding from a translation of the article is that each country will vote, and this committee decision bind Finland to a "no" vote.
> EU countries will vote on the proposal at the end of October. At that time, the proposal will go through, if it is not opposed by a number of countries representing a total of at least 35 percent of EU citizens.
There are two votes, one of all the MEPs and one of each country's government. You need a majority in parliament and not enough to veto you (~1/3) in the minister council (or whatever their proper English name is)
I purchased a 7900XTX on release day, with the Linux drivers being in a fairly rough state and new fixes being added daily. So, for the next 3-4 months, I was running Fedora Rawhide with the Koji repo added - about as bleeding edge as it gets, short of building locally from source. Rolling back definely came in handy once or twice.
Once things stabilized, I rebased back to non-Rawhide Fedora 37 and stayed there. Then, a few weeks ago, I found out that AMD had been working on ROCM for the 7xxx series, so I've rebased to Rawhide again to play around with AI tools on the 6.6 kernel.
I've also occasionally encountered non-critical bugs, suspected it might have been fixed upstream, and temporarily rebased to Rawhide just to check out if that was the case before reporting it. Pretty nice.
Just like Wayland, they're pushing it for other reasons (breaking existing stuff, locking you in to the GNOME desktop, etc), and using spurious reasons to promote it.
> The best way to not get long Covid is to not get Covid, and the best way to not get Covid is to be well vaccinated and boosted and have a good level of antibodies to stop the virus getting in.
I know people who got multiple jabs and have had Covid-19 several times already. These suggestions are useless.
> in those breakthrough cases in the vaccinated people, your chance of long Covid is further reduced perhaps by another 50 percent.
If it's reduced by only 50%, with Long Covid being so rare I'd rather take my chances and remain unvaccinated!
Take your chances with what? The vaccine was free for me all 3 times I had it. When I had Covid post-vaccine it was much more mild than when I had it pre-vaccine, though there are several confounding variables present there.
Table 3 and 4 of this UK government information state the number of vaccinations needed in my age/health bracket to prevent a severe hospitalization exceed the number at which we’d expect at least one serious adverse effect — that is, they do more harm than good.
The fact that mRNA based interventions have never before been deployed and as an individual it’s sensible to be cautious about using them until there is long term safety data?
Only if you believe that the risks of mRNA vaccination is higher than the (extra) risk of covid. In my estimation taking the vaccine is the prudent and cautious choice, and the scientific consensus has to be wrong by a large margin for your position to turn out to be more prudent.
If the scientific consensus is contradicting basic system component risk analysis, then yes we unfortunately have to ignore it. I too am deeply disturbed by this.
No, but we do have an enormous amount of data on viruses in general. “The unknown” is limited to the unique attributes of a specific virus, and any common attributes across viruses in general or related-and-well-studied are low risk for producing unexpected long term effects. For mRNA interventions on the other hand, “the unknown” covers the entire mechanism.
> For mRNA interventions on the other hand, “the unknown” covers the entire mechanism.
Why do you think that? mRNA interventions have been researched and tested for a while, this was just the first big real-world application. But that's very different from saying that mRNA interventions haven't been well-studied. You'll have to provide actual research comparing long-term dangers of viruses with existing long-term mRNA tests to make this claim and convince anyone.
Personally, having been led on wild goose chases by the medical system before in life led me to also be wary of any magic solution with no long term testing.
Pretty much everything has side effects - even the most safe drug or supplement has tradeoffs. For example, taking PPIs which are very safe will cause malabsorption of B12 over time leading to various health issues.
The risk from being vaccinated against covid isn't "you feel like shit for a day". That's not a worry for most people.
Is injecting a person with mRNA that makes them produce a particularly nasty spike protein zero risk? No. Is this spike protein one of those? Does it end up where it shouldn't?
In 2023 that information is not available. Not true or false, but simply unavailable.
> Is injecting a person with mRNA that makes them produce a particularly nasty spike protein zero risk? No. Is this spike protein one of those? Does it end up where it shouldn't?
Aren't you getting the same spike protein when you're infected by COVID, which is more likely if you're not vaccinated? That would mean the vaccinations reduce your exposure to the spike protein.
> Aren't you getting the same spike protein when you're infected by COVID
That's the entire goal. But is it the same spike protein? Does it end up in the same tissues as COVID? Does the mRNA delivery & creation vector matter?
I rolled the dice and got triple-vaxxed, on the assumption that I'm better off than getting covid with a naive immune system, but I wasn't under any illusions that it's anything but a some-unknown-%-loaded-in-my-favor dice roll.
There wasn't enough time to wait years and see what the outcomes are, and also most people on the planet were guaranteed to get covid soon anyway.
> Does it end up in the same tissues as COVID? Does the mRNA delivery & creation vector matter?
I haven't seen any evidence for different tissue, or effects due to mRNA delivery & creation. Given how big the anti-COVID-vax movement and industry is I feel fairly sure that any such issues would have been found by now.
> I rolled the dice and got triple-vaxxed, on the assumption that I'm better off than getting covid with a naive immune system, but I wasn't under any illusions that it's anything but a some-unknown-%-loaded-in-my-favor dice roll.
> There wasn't enough time to wait years and see what the outcomes are, and also most people on the planet were guaranteed to get covid soon anyway.
I think this is a fair way of putting it, but at the same time it feels like the potential criticisms towards the vaccines always far outweigh any such criticisms towards COVID itself.
I'm not perfect, so I qualify my statements. What is your issue with that? Would you like it better if I pretended that I know everything with 100% certainty?
I think you're misunderstanding me. I'm not arguing that we shouldn't do further research in mRNA interventions, or that it's perfectly understood. I'm arguing that we also don't understand COVID well, and that we should use similar levels of care for both, instead of treating COVID as fully understood and only looking at mRNA with a healthy dose of scepticism.
Is injecting people with mRNA via lipid nanoparticles to prompt their bodies to produce Covid spike protein less risky than Covid?
I don't think in 2023 that question is answerable. It's not a "yes" or "no" right now, although I've erred on the side of "yes" until proven otherwise.
I have 4-5 several fixed IPv4 addresses and they're inexpensive compared to the hassle of using IPv6.