I don’t think so. This is not first time euro bureaucrats pull off shit like this. Apply cutthroat regulations locally and push through cheap imports. Then cry about local industries struggling. Rinse and repeat.
I’m against similar trade deal with US too. Or pretty much any other country. At best some shitty lobbyists used it as a scapegoat to push through a bad deal.
To be fair, Europe is tired of its farmers rioting and the general public welcomes the trade deal. If the farmers are crying about struggling against competition, I have a tiny violin to play for them.
Maybe lift all the green deal stuff on our own farmers while at it? Let’s make it a fair competition.
What’s next, let in shitty US food?
I don’t see general public welcoming it. Most people don’t seem to even know about it. Out of those who do know, many don't seem to be happy about it.
Also, fucking over our farmers in unstable world does not seem like a smart thing to do. It’s time to do opposite and double-down on sovereignty on all fronts. And food sovereignty was one of very few sectors where EU got it right. Our food is not cheap, but we got plenty locally and quality is pretty good.
I do not see any empty fields left and right. Despite farmers complaining since 30 years about every single trade deal. Honestly I have not seen an unused field ever. And as long the fields are producing food this is just a change in income or structure of an industry.
Coming from ex-USSR… I’m used to unused fields. Nowadays situation is better. Where soil is best, all (most?) fields are used. But in other parts of the country unused fields are not uncommon.
It doesn’t help that we are getting only a fraction of EU farming subsidies. While fancy machinery cost the same as for western counterparts. So Netherlands with higher wages are outpricing our farmers :D
I think it’s matter of time when more and more of those deals will reach the tipping point. And after that it will be very hard to restore local agriculture.
> Also, fucking over our farmers in unstable world does not seem like a smart thing to do.
Everyone can solve this for their own farmers. Just buy local, problem solved.
Does that mean some things might be a bit more expensive? Yes, you're paying to keep them around just like you might want someone to pay for you to be employed.
If we don't it's a race to the bottom for everyone.
It works when eating at home and making from scratch. How about eating out? Good luck pushing cheaper part of the sector to buy local. And not just pay lip service. And reality is many many people will just buy cheaper option and won’t thin about the impact.
You raise a good point here. When I think about writing multi-threaded code, three things come to mind about why it is so easy in Java and C#: (1) The standard library has lots of support for concurrency. (2) Garbage collection. (3) Debuggers have excellent support for multi-threaded code.
Not really, especially as garbage collection doesn't achieve memory safety. Safety-wise, it only helps avoid UAF due to lifecycle errors.
Garbage collection is primarily just a way to handle non-trivial object lifecycles without manual effort. Parallelism happens to often bring non-trivial object lifecycles, but this is not a major problem in parallelism.
In plain C, the common pattern is trying to keep lifecycles trivial, and the moment this either doesn't make sense or isn't possible, you usually just add a reference count member:
In both Go and C, all types used in concurrent code needs to be reviewed for thread-safety, and have appropriate serialization applied - in the C case, this just also includes the refcnt itself. And yes you could have UAF or leak if you don't call ref/unref correctly, but that' sunrelated to parallism - it's just everyday life in manual memory management land.
The issues with parallelism is the same in Go and C, that you might have invalid application states, whether due to missing serialization - e.g., forgetting to lock things appropriately or accidentally using types that are not thread safe at all - or due to business logic flaws (say, two threads both sleeping, waiting for the other one to trigger an event and wake it up).
Torrenting is easy, but what are you goung to do with the torrented files then? Without additional external hardware you probably won't be able to play your downloaded files on your large TV, and most people prefer a laggy simple route over having to do more work. I do torrent from time to time, but the hassle associated with the whole process really highlights why streaming apps took over.
As technology improves, we have less and less need for nuclear. The continent with the greatest need for nuclear is Europe, and these German grid modelers have taken a look at the EU grid with the latest data and decided that additional baseload generation (like nuclear) is not required and will likely increase costs if built:
In addition to the other corrections here, I'd like to add one more remarkable fact: in 2025 the share of German electricity generated by solar increased to 18% from 14%. That's in a single year, in a country with terribly low levels of sun! Nuclear generated 5% of electricity before it was shut down, and had generated that same percentage for more than a decade (that's as far back as the chart I saw went).
It's remarkably easy to scale solar to very large amounts in short time periods. Far easier than building a new nuclear fleet.
A core assumption of capitalism is that when individuals act in their own self-interest, their actions tend to produce outcomes that are beneficial for society as a whole. This seems like a compelling piece of evidence!
I think that's, generally speaking, not true, as evidenced by the fact that climate change is still happening almost entirely due to selfish motivations of oil companies and bribed politicians.
Yet, globally, the world is moving towards renewables regardless of big-oil interests. I don't think even the most hard core activists are expecting to close everything coal, gas and oil related overnight, so we need to wait until the energy transformation is finished. It won't be led by the US, Russia and the Middle-East, that's for sure, but it will happen.
Even if that's true, we're already facing negative consequences from climate change, and it's affecting developing countries the most. The oil companies knew about the risk of climate change in the 70's, and actively suppressed it and pushed pro-petroleum narratives instead.
Certainly the selfish greedy ambitions of corrupt politicians and short-sighted corporations aren't good for the people dying and being displaced. I mean, we can play with numbers and try and argue a "greater good", sure, but it does seem a little convenient that we can act like greedy self-interests are helping everyone when there are current victims.
I think the idea behind that concept is not that it's true. The idea is we will never change human self-interest and greed. So we build systems where even with that as the primary motivation, it still has more important secondary effects that probably benefit us.
And I'm saying that that hasn't historically been the case.
There are plenty of quarries that effectively condemned land that destroyed entire ecosystems because of greedy mineral companies. Pretty much anyone using this forum is using a product that was produced by unethical and/or child labor. We're already seeing negative effects from climate change, effecting many, many people, mostly in poor countries, and it's likely to get worse before it gets better.
You could argue that these systems benefit some people; I certainly benefit from having cheap electronics, but of course you can always cherry pick good examples from pretty much anything. This is with the current system that we built.
Now sure, there might be some hypothetical system that maybe fixes these problems, but due to the use of the word "evidence" in the comment I was responding to I didn't think we were talking political theory.
What kind of logic is that? It reminds me some people I know that vote to extreme-right parties because "well, we know that the regular parties are not gonna change anything. These new guys may do something new. Who knows, let's vote them and find out"
Well, no, I think that the claim is that having nuclear power plants is better than not having them. If they're not sucking energy off the grid (like what is happening right now), that at least will help avoid regular people like us having to pay the increased prices and indirectly subsidizing them.
And nuclear energy is clean (from a climate change perspective at least), and so if they're going to keep spending huge amounts of energy AI training anyway, it's probably better to do that in a way that isn't going to keep boiling the planet.
Also, if there is any kind of excess energy then it can be fed back into the grid, meaning that grid power can be fed from something relatively clean compared to something dirty (like coal).
I'm not entirely sure how this relates to the party thing. I'm saying that sometimes something selfish in a capitalistic system can occasionally still be a net good. I didn't think that was controversial. I'm not saying we give Zuckerberg a trophy or anything.
The name predates the standardisation. The committee did not come with the whole thing themselves, rather they adopted and expanded already existing library implementations. You could move in C++, with this exact name, long before C++11.
Howard Hinnant's original move proposal for C++ is from 2002. And by then even the destructive move (the more useful operation and the semantic provided in Rust) was well understood.
Hinnant said they couldn't find a way to do destructive move and have the C++ inheritance hierarchy. To me it's obvious what loses in this case, but to a C++ programmer at the turn of the century apparently C++ implementation inheritance ("OO programming") was seen as crucial so C++ 11 move semantics are basically what's described in that proposal.
And in Russian we use "jad" ("яд" in cyrillic) for both. Although there is the word "отрава", which can be used for poisons and "яд" is closer to "venom" the difference is almost non-existant and both are often used interchangeably.
those who remember the past are doomed to repeat it?
seriously, this doesn't seem like a useful argument, regardless of whether true. the fact that humans have committed ecocide in the past doesn't seem like a reason to continue...
It's not. It's a comforting lie to justify inaction. You see it a lot when people justify not voting or civically engaging.
To be clear, I am doing jack shit about deep-sea mining. But that's a choice I'm making and I own it, even if it makes me uncomfortable. (And there are plenty of cases where that discomfort drives folks into action, however minor.)
I didn't read it as a justification for inaction but rather a reality check. The tone of the parent seemed to imply that the current situation is somehow unusual or unexpected.
The difference between "he's gone mad" which seems to imply that an urgent response is warranted versus "unsurprisingly, his long standing madness continues".
reply