That's the cool part about woodblock printing, you can use different palettes to make multiple editions of the same print. You have to reset the gradients on each pass, in either case.
> In the cabin, the heft makes the plane feel almost still, even at 500 miles an hour and 35,000 feet; it is the only plane I have ever flown in whose takeoff and landing were imperceptible to the senses.
And "takeoff and landing were imperceptible to the senses" is quite an exaggeration for both the 747 and A380. They are nice to fly, but takeoff and landings are definitely perceptible. Unless the author was black-out drunk for both takeoff and landing.
> In November 1940, philosopher Aloys Müller criticized Planck’s views in a Naturwissenschaften piece titled “Naturwissenschaft und reale Außenwelt” (“Natural Science and the Real External World”). A month later, Planck responded in print—and used the exact same title. This, Gingras and Khelfaoui suspect, caused Springer Nature’s copyright bot to retract the paper as plagiarism decades later, even though the contents of the two essays differ markedly.
> The debate over the Copenhagen interpretation remains active today, which explains why Gingras and Khelfaoui find the retractions so troubling: A key scientist’s views on an important controversy have been memory holed.
> Both Scarlata and Gingras are concerned that papers by less prominent scientists have disappeared as well without anyone realizing. At a minimum, Gingras wants Planck’s papers restored. “Whoever did it, I don’t care,” he says, “just put them [back] in the database. Intellectually, it’s not acceptable.”
Maybe I am missing the point, but what is the alternative? You found a company in Germany, dont realize your gains, therefore dont pay taxes, then leave the country, realize your gains, and still dont pay taxes? Why should Germany or any other country allow this?
The issue is liquidity. The tax comes due as soon as you leave, but you might not be able to liquidate your shares quickly enough to be able to pay those taxes. Depending on how your company gets valued these can be eye-watering numbers.
This is something you can solve with enough time, but if I get a job offer where I'm supposed to start in 2 months? Very inconvenient. (There are some ways to spread this out have this tax burden spread out over time, but it still represents significant friction)
You own a company so valuable that the tax on selling it shares puts you in serious trouble, but you still need to a start "a job"? A Job that requires you to change your nationality/tax residency to a non EU-state?
Edit: Maybe I should give an example:
Lets say you build up a company, your shares are worth ~100k, while you payed yourself a living salary of ~2k so you could pay rent and buy groceries but not much more, especially no savings.
Now you get on offer to work in the US for 180k/a, you sigh "finally" and just want to move, but the German wants 30k Taxes on your unrealized ~100k capital gain before your leave - Is this the kind of situation you are referring to?
Pretty much. I just have a symbolic 5% stake in the company and working there has certainly not made me rich. I'm still early in my career so I don't have a ton of savings. It wouldn't cause "serious trouble" but paying tens of thousands in taxes on top of the cost and hassle involved in moving overseas is still a significant burden and certainly a case of the regulation missing its mark.
As long as Germany and other countries allow foreign companies to do business with their subjects, then foreign companies will be at advantage to domestic companies because of the exit tax.
If they want to be strict about it, they should only allow German companies to do business with German subjects. Then there wouldn't be an advantage to foreign companies.
Its incredible how much better Italian houses/cities feel at 30C(86F) compared to e.g. German houses/cities at 30C.
While the adaption of solar + air-conditioners (better: reversible heat-pumps) will be a good thing, I hope the local/conventional methods to deal with heat are not forgotten.
It is because of insulation and lack of sun-mitigating apparatus (like awnings). Buildings with lots of insulation absorb heat all through the day and release it slowly at night.
Wikipedia is not an experiment in democracy or any other political system. Its primary (though not exclusive) means of decision making and conflict resolution is editing and discussion leading to consensus—not voting. (Voting is used for certain matters such as electing the Arbitration Committee.) Straw polls are sometimes used to test for consensus, but polls or surveys can impede, rather than foster, discussion and should be used with caution.
Off-site petitions and votes have no weight in the formation of consensus on Wikipedia.
Sanger wrote the original version of that rule, and its change over the years has reflected a shift from people coming to Wikipedia in the very early years thinking that they could just do whatever the Hell they wanted, to in later years people coming to Wikipedia thinking that it is run like a legislature.
After that, Larry Sanger remarked: "What people don't realize, actually, is the number of people who are actually at work on Wikipedia on any given day is not really that enormous. It's more in the hundreds or low thousands, not in the millions. Well, there's a lot of people in India. There's a lot of educated people in India, right? There's a lot more educated people in India than there are in, say, England. Just due to sheer numbers, you can field a lot of good writers on Wikipedia, and if you quite simply learn how to play the game..." (33:54).
You cut out the context, making it look like he was trying to bias the website.
The part you left out was that he was asked by the interviewer how Indians who felt the site was biased against them could fight the bias:
> When asked about how "Indians and Hindus who feel there is this bias" could "fight it actively", Larry Sanger responded:
So he’s saying that a group can combat bias on the site by participating in the site. India has a lot of educated people and therefore it wouldn’t be hard to find people to contribute. Why is this so controversial?
Ok, saying things like "The left marched through this institution. There’s no reason we can’t march right back" is pretty bad.
To be clear: it would be equally bad if you swapped left and right in that sentence. I don't know if his assessment of the issues with Wikipedia is correct, but his solutions aren't what you propose if you want to make Wikipedia more neutral
> Ok, saying things like "The left marched through this institution. There’s no reason we can’t march right back" is pretty bad.
He’s not saying they need to “march through this institution”. He’s saying they need to learn how to navigate the increasingly Byzantine rules set up by the small number of editors so they can contribute to the site.
Why would it be bad to counter bias by bringing in people from the under-represented group? What would be permissible to you, if not bringing in people from that group to participate?
It's a rephrasing of the "Cultural Marxism" conspiracy theory, which was at the core of Breivik's Manifesto. A conspiracy theory that originated as "Cultural Bolshevism", the justification the actual Nazis used to justify their mass murder.
Cultural Bolshevism wasn't the justification to the mass murder the Nazis committed. The genocide was motivated due to Nazis' own racial theories. The rest were killed due to strict authoritarianism of the ideology. At best, it was an excuse.
No they aren't the same. Jews, as a race, were seen as subhuman and antisocial, sufficient justifications in Nazi world view to exterminate.
Cultural Bolshevism was, at best, an attempt to link anything seen as degenerate to jews to further strengthen persecution of such. Even if Jews weren't a thing, Nazis would still mass murder, hence it was an excuse.
You might be confusing a couple of things. Nazis couldn't care less about the "west". In fact, in the Nazi world view, Jews already controlled most of western contries. They were, first and foremost, "aryan" supremacists (not white supremacists, as commonly understand today), and saw the world under a dialectic lens of Aryans vs. everyone else. There is no "west" there.
The people who most talk about "Cultural Marxism" (conservatives) tend to be Israel shills, even on when it commit atrocities. In the same line, most discussions of cultural marxism don't invoke race, maybe religion (but not often Judaism).
I read it. In my second reading, I found nothing that contradict the first point, and that address the second point. If you found otherwise, could you cite the relevant sections?
Sure, I feel like both of your points are addressed by the first paragraph already:
> Jewish Bolshevism, also Judeo–Bolshevism, is an antisemitic, anti-communist conspiracy theory, and myth[2] that claims that a Jewish conspiracy was behind the Russian Revolution of 1917, controlled the Soviet Union and international communist movements, and had a secret plan to control or destroy Western civilization; or, more generally, it is the antisemitic myth that Bolshevism was fundamentally Jewish.[3] It was one of the main Nazi beliefs that served as an ideological justification for the German invasion of the Soviet Union and the Holocaust.[4]
I had a history education in Austria, a big part of it was trying to teach how we ever got to the atrocities that were committed, and as part of that we were thought how the Nazi ideological apparatus worked.
The conflating of Jewishness and Communism was a key pillar of their ideology.
As the citation says, it was one of the main beliefs that justified the invasion and the Holocaust. Even if Jewish Bolshevism wasn't a thing (which could happen, if Jews didn't get better representation in the USSR in comparison to the Empire), Nazis would still commit the holocaust, invade the USSR, and, most importantly, still exist, thus, it can't be called a key pillar of Nazism. It's more accurately described as a key pillar of Nazi propaganda, supported here:
> Michael Kellogg in his Ph.D. thesis argued that the racist ideology of Nazis was to a significant extent influenced by White émigrés in Germany, [...]
p.s. Kellogg is mentioned below to argue that this was the origin of Hitler's antisemitism, but that is contested, and there's plenty of evidence of Hitler antisemitism from early on. Still, Jewish Bolshevism is well accepted as a key propaganda element.
Moving to the second point, I don't see how your citation address it. "Cultural Marxism" is primarily spoken without referring to religion. Unlike Cultural Bolshevism, there's no modern equivalent to Jewish Bolshevism, and, as I stated previously, the ones who primarily talk about Cultural Marxism don't even mention religion, and if they do, they often treat Judaism and Christianity as if they are in the same boat. If anything, the closest religious scapegoats would be Muslims, but they aren't treated as "masterminds". Don't even get started on race (which is what Nazis actually cared about).
Rereading this comment, I realized I made a jump withe white émigrés bit. The idea is that they would form a significant support base of Nazi Germany, but weren't as central to the philosophy of Hitler's ideology as suggested.
I also recognize that I did claim that Jewish Bolshevism wasn't the justification for the mass murders. I still maintain that, for I meant the main primary ideological reason why the Nazis did it. Without the racial supremacy (specially without the theories about Hebrew degeneracy) and ultra-traditionalism of Nazism, Jewish Bolshevism wouldn't even be conceived.
I'm trying to find the charitable read on this and I'm unable to. He's saying that it would be great to allow Hindu ethnonationalist sources, because that would open up a talent pool of Hindo ethnonationalist editors? What kind of an argument is that?
He said that in response to a leading question by the interviewer: he's saying if you think X viewpoint is being suppressed, then people with that viewpoint need to participate to counter the suppression.
1. Proposal: Lets ban tracking.
2. "But what if the user wants to be tracked? People want better adds![1] We are also missing out on business innovations!"
3. Fine. But since nobody in their right mind would want to done to them, you must prove with out a shadow of a doubt that the people you are tracking did consent to that.
4. Surely, nobody will do this.
5. Cookie banners everywhere.
[1] I am not kidding. "Isnt it better if the ads show things you are interested in?" was a main talking point.
Bonus: The original proposal (~2017) also mandated that social media which uses personal algorithmic feeds must make the individual data set of each user which is used to generated said feed viewable and editable to the user.
Was ofc shut down by the corporate bootlickers people tend to vote into our parliaments.
The vast majority[1] of people do opt out as we can see with the "ask app not to track" on iOS. When it's a simple yes or no button, nobody wants to be tracked.
It's pretty funny seeing youtube beg for you to allow them to on a screen right before the popup. Of course, I doubt they haven't found a way around it at this point.
That definitely applies to me, but I'm not sure everyone is the same.
Some people have the TV on every waking minute of the day, no matter what else they're doing. Some listen to music or podcasts in the same way. Others scroll through social media whilst eating or walking or even during conversations with other people.
It's not a new thing, either - constant background TV was definitely a thing at my grandparents' house when I was a child in the 1980s. Personally, I find the idea horrifying but I accept that I'm a bit of an outlier!
https://nipponprints.com/images/tsuchiya-koitsu/summer-moon-...
(non-deeplink: https://nipponprints.com/tsuchiya-koitsu/summer-moon-at-miya... )
reply