Gorth

Interesting tech news... a copy of googles cloud software running in Europe. European location, German staff. No access for Google or its subsidiaries. https://www.thalesgroup.com/en/news-centre/press-releases/thales-announces-strategic-partnership-google-cloud-launch-new-sovereign Edit: tl;dr; a European version of Google cloud that US authorities have no access to.

Long before the 20th and 21th century, the English were pioneering book burning. An entire edition of the bible met its end on the pyres in 1631. Only a few survived and are valuable collectors items today. All because of one little typo. https://collections.museumofthebible.org/artifacts/6196-the-wicked-bible?theme=collections-highlights The typo? They left out the word 'not' in the 7th commandment (Thou shalt not commit adultery). It slipped past the proof readers too.

Look, bond markets explained using simple words even I can understand! @BruceVC just curious, is this how it actually works? Never mind his predictions may or may not be correct, just the mechanics of it

That reminds me my tetanus, diphtheria, and pertussis vaccination is 5 years old. I should probably get a new one. I didn't know it was a combo thing when I got it and the lady at the pharmacy pointed out my shoulder could be a bit sore because of the tetanus vaccination. I was like, what tetanus vaccination? First thing I hear of it 😄 (I really just wanted the pertussis part because friends had given birth to a daughter a few days earlier and i didn't want to be the one dragging something unwanted into their little family)

No idea what price tags they have on the other side of the pond, but here they have relative low cost of ownership compared to fossil fuel cars. Depending on usage of course. Up front investment is higher but every Km driven saves you money. Not sure about the charging time, my dads VW ID4 typically takes 15 minutes to go from 20% to 80%. I.e. it's not instantaneous.

...and people wonder why electric vehicles are so popular here 😝

I thought these memes and roasts were funny, but probably too politically biased to be considered just humour

No Milla Jovowitch? F-

A funny thought... and yes, before anyone tries to explain the obvious errors in such thinking (it really just was a funny completely unscientific thought), that maybe less people apply for unemployment because they people that used to have those jobs left the country? (i.e. the US has a negative net migration number, more people trying to get out from the US than into the US) BrookingsMacroeconomic implications of immigration flows in 2025 a...Wendy Edelberg, Stan Veuger, and Tara Watson review immigration flow trends in 2025 and 2026, and analyze their macroeconomic implications.

In Denmark we call them "Socialdemocrats". I.e. the workers party. At some point they went screw it, this is what people wants, this is what we give the people. Effectively stealing a lot of the thunder from far right parties, who normally campaign on that single subject. We do have some of the most immigrant unfriendly policies in Europe though. How Denmark's left (not the far right) got tough on immigration Denmark’s hardline immigration laws have caught Britain’s eye. Here’s why | CNN Denmark’s Approach to Immigration and the Debate on EU’s Asylum and Migration Policy | Northern Europe | bpb.de Will Denmark's hardline migration policy influence rest of EU? Tl;dr; You are not welcome and don't expect to remain here.

An interesting point. Curious about your view on the best solution. How would a resource rich country make best use of its resources? Letting foreign countries have them for free never really worked in the past. If not nationalizing the resource, then what? Most common result is foreign enclaves where the corporation operating the area builds a local industry for its own imported workforce. I.e. very little benefit for the local econonmy. The Chinese are best known for it at the moment, but they were neither the first nor the worst (i.e. stripping an area of anything of value leaving the locals to pick up the clean up bill and the consequences). It breeds resentment. Taxing the hell out of corporations (good luck trying to do that)? edit: I.e. what would you consider viable alternatives to nationalising resources? edit2: Yes, I am perfectly well aware of it not working well in the past, mostly because such governments are just as corrupt as the corporations they seized the resources from edit3: Hypothetical example, a Saudi corporation decides arctic ice from Greenland is the perfect fit for Saudi drinks and wants to strip mine the ice sheet. Government in Nuuk gets bribed to let said Saudi firm import know how, machinery and specialized Saudi work force to slear the ice from Greenland. What options would the Inuit population have to get part of their heritance and the wealth currently flowing into Saudi pockets?

Isn't the whole fight insurgents with military force such a 20th century way of thinking? You want to get rid of insurgents, take away their reason to exist. It varies of course from case to case, but as far as I know, most insurgencies are the result of large disenfranchised groups with no future and nothing to lose. As far as I have been able to follow, most insurgencies in Africa and South/Latin America (and The Levant) are the results of a combination of isolation (information control), poverty (inequality) and rampant corruption in the "democratically elected" governments, meaning they are just totalitarian regimes with a better PR apparatus. If people have a job, a future, get exposed to other ideas, prospects instead of projects and something worth keeping, like a home, they tend to be too busy to worry about risking it on doing insurgency. But you can't fight income inequality, poverty, ignorance and homelessness with military forces. At best, you keep insurgents around because it helps those in power to tighten their grip on said power. Edit: Don't get me started on genuine democratically elected governments toppled by western powers because they were inconvenient

From the first link... I had probably already developed a bias just based on the title. Nothing like a bit of confirmation bias 👼 "And it bears repeating that their survey-based research has only found a troubling overlap in these pesticide exposures and incidences of lung cancer, not concrete proof of a biochemical mechanism confirming these compounds are carcinogenenic." I actually had two ideas before reading the articles. Either people survive other things and lung cancer being the next best thing on their bingo card to die from or the fruits and vegetables weren't exactly organic produce.

That sounds like Apple's target demographic

Peanuts compared to those who made a killing (figure of speech) in oil futures hours before the surprise attack on Iran in the middle of negotiations. Pearl Harbour 1941 seems like a less unique situation these days-