The US has set the bar pretty low. It would take tremendous effort to look worse than USA under Trump extremist leadership.

Anything but PoW

You seem to be putting words in my mouth, ie I don’t think sanctions failed, so I’m going to ignore the conclusions you make from that.

A breakdown of my comment :

The war would have played differently if dedaces ago, ie BEFORE the start of the war, european countries had reduced their reliance on fossiel fuel.

In 2020, the EU was Russia’s biggest trading partners, and fossil fuels were a large chunk of EU import. It took years of sanctions, of setting up alternative energy import deals, and of electrification efforts, to get a points where Russia-EU trades are a small parts of today’s total trades.

During those 4 years, Ukraine severely suffered from Russian’s invasion, and Russia was cashing in on energy export to the EU. Less export and less revenue from exports would have it more difficult for Russia to finance war, and easier for the EU to quickly sanctions Russia.

So yes, the EU’s energy policy was bad for some time, because of its members’ reliance on fossil fuel, and overreliance on Russia as energy provider. It’s definitely improving, better late than never. It’s clearly not as simple as “EU bad”, the union is doing a great deal to sanction Russia and support Ukraine.

Oh no, not the coal and gas-powered currency.

If the criminal’s home country enforce the sentence, then why not?

The Ukraine war would have played our diffetently had Europe reduced its reliance on fossiel fuels decades ago. The continent is paying for its short-sightedness.

Who could expect its thermal exaust port would be a weakness?

[…] PuffPal, a platform that manages membership and age verification for cannabis retailers and clubs across Europe.

Get ready for many more leaks, as governments require identity and age verification everywhere online.

Many organisations, which cannot be trusted with this data, are going to be processing it.

revisions may be necessary “to keep the family together.”

What’s more important:

Pleasing some members governments that defend fossil fuel industry interests, or avoiding severe harm threatening all EU citizens?

Grow a pair (of gonads)!

If a majority agreement possible, there need to be a majority behind more ambitious goals. Ohers could be ignored as long as they can’t veto.

That’d be ideal, and would affect adtech’s ability to track without consent. So that’s a good goal.

Requiring adtech to honor an automated signal would still be progress, hopefully reducing enshittification and making it easier to refuse tracking.

It would be an extra bit or 2 that could be included in fingerprint. IMHO it’s worth it if there’s regulation that makes it easier to go after companies that ignore those signals

Well said.

The one exception where producing images with generative AIs could be acceptable is to study their impact on society and the environment.

Even in such case, care should be taken to minimize the amount of images generated to the strict minimum, to give as little money as possible to toxic corporations and to minimise pollution. Favor studying images previously generated and already available online if that’s sufficient for the study’s purpose.

Good point. The first repo, anon-vpn, has single commit made 3 weeks ago.

Security sensitive software require time, review or audit. Let’s give this time. It may take from a few months to 2 years until there’s enough scrutiny to either confirm it’s safe, or reveal problems.

Until them, keep using well-known open-source software.

I can stop whenever I want, I swear, not addicted to Russian LNG.

Blowing so much money on fossil fuel subsidies left the EU vulnerable to an oil crisis, greatly limit the budget available to invest in renewables or to react to such crisis.

This was apparently rejected by members of the European Council.

[…] the EU foreign ministers meeting in Luxembourg held on Tuesday

I wonder what the commission and parliement think about this.

Thanks. This explain why cruise ships are much more wasteful than ferries:

perhaps the biggest difference is the payload. […] The reason, of course, is that a cruise ship is a floating village, with shops, restaurants, swimming pools and the like

This is why it’s important to compare transportation mode all things being equal. Keep in mind there’s lot of people flying coach, very few planes with individual cabins and restaurants. Cruise ships are designed for entertainment and luxury. Ferries are designed for transportation.

I’d be interested into some data on this topic.

My undersranding is plane is one of the most polluting mode of transportation, all things being equal. It probably vary a lot depending on the specific ship/plane, route, …

Data from the UK’s Department for Energy Securityand Net Zero (2022) shows the carbon footprint is 8x higher for short/long-haul fight than for ferry. (CO2eq per passenger-km). Carbon footprint is strongly coupled with fuel consumption. It’s not quite the same, but I’d expect the ratio to be roughly the same.

Right, I know nothing except it seems to involve jet fuel. This is a general comment on vacations by plane, don’t take it personally.

If oil shortage is severe enough and long lasting, we might see passenger ships coming back for transatlantic travel. How badly do you need to cross the atlantic?

Vacations doesn’t require jet fuel.

Relatively few people in the world visit the other side of the world by plane. For our sake it should remain a rare occurrence. For most vacations, there’s plenty of places that one can reach by train and bus.

If your area has shitty train infrastructure or too few bus lanes, I’m sorry, you may want to have a close look at where your taxes are going.