Europe, to me, just feels so much more free culturally at this point. Young people enjoy so much more independence, and somehow also have the means to self-organise. I tried out so much, so many good and diverse experiences, but I don’t think this would be possible in North America. You wouldn’t even be able to get to venues because everything requires a car in North America anyways…
We can often only imagine what we have experienced. Imagining a subway is difficult without ever having experienced one (at least on TV), we would probably assume that building underground is too impractical for public transport.
Maybe what legitimises courts (and the government as a whole) is, regardless of constant rejection of “feminine” traits, emotion and feeling.
Copyright is based in the right to free expression (and the right to keep expressions to yourself) It is tremendously important that not everything one writes is by default available publicly. It is necessary that the author has the right to publish, that is, to decide if and when and where to publish. Any further rights can be discussed. If a work has been published publicly, it only makes sense that the public has a right to it. But not before.
If you want to target big tech you should use antitrust/competition law (or at least use high thresholds in your user-faced regulations. because otherwise what you do is decrease competition by making the situation more hostile for small competitors).
Infrastructure was long viewed as secondary. Somewhat important but not important enough for comprehensive regulation. However, infrastructure is what connects us, the people, to their rights. It is what enables and protects. It also is, what can be easily targeted. I think it is time to reconsider what level of importance and requirements we place on infrastructure.
People have this weird assumption that everything animal is natural and everything whole-plant is natural but when you chop up some plants and mix em with other plants it’s suddenly plastic.
A vegan diet has usually has a better ratio of omega-3 to omega-6 fatty acids. However, it is mostly rich in ALA (plant oils) and less in EPA and DHA (algae).
The same situation can affect groups of traffic participants differently, e.g. bad roads - worse for bikes because less suspension; frequent stops - worse for bikes because manual acceleration; frequent ramps - worse for wheel chairs than for pedestrians because height difference is more noticeable; noises - worse for anyone outside of a car or train because no isolation; long distances - way worse for children and the elderly who are not that good at navigating and at endurance/stamina.
Nuclear energy has many advantages and I don’t think that there is much ground to call it “unsafe” while running. However, there still is no suitable solution for repository of radioactive waste, especially in countries with overall high-density populations.
“Social Media” is the new opium of the people.
“Is-ism” (the belief that because something is as it is, it cannot be changed) seems very strong regarding law too. Especially in discussions about rights, the argument “but it is not in the constitution” or “the constitution guarantees A over B” is often heard but after all invalid, as the constitution is changeable. Founding people of an eternal, unchangeable constitution might not deserve the amount of respect people give them because they made the crucial mistake of ignoring that any society will change over time.
A good meal appeals to several (if not all) flavors: sweet, salty, sour, bitter, umami, with bitter lacking in most modern diets. Mixing everything into one might be overpowering, side dishes are the way to go. It will also appeal to the eye by using several colours. And it will, to me most importantly, feature different preparation methods which change both taste and texture: include pan-fried, boiled, baked, and fermented. Both bitter and fermented, uncommon in modern diets, are quite beneficial for digestion.
The speech on the October Crisis and proclamation of the War Measures Act by Pierre Trudeau is possibly my favourite speech of all times. Not because of the content, certainly not. The situation was dire, but no matter how justified suspending freedoms might have been, I can never be a fan of it. It might have been necessary, but that doesn’t make it good. What makes the speech extraordinarly good is the wording, the reasoning. I don’t need to agree with the assumptions and the decisions to agree with the reasoning and presentation. Everything builds up to the core information. And every predictable fear is addressed in a meaningful way. The whole speech is a due diligence process on the existence and legitimacy of the State and on Division of Power put into words. Showing to the people what is at stake on all sides and angles and making your decision for one over the other transparent. Showing the people that you did not overlook their rights at stake. And of course he’s a great speaker as well.
The purpose of copyright, like any intellectual property, is said to be, on the “pro” side, to foster an environment that motivates research and advancement by protecting and monetising work. Where digital measures are taken, which, purposefully or accidentally, hinder interaction with the work in a substantial way, this purpose is not only not reached but actively perpetrated. It strays so far from the original idea of published work, that it now lacks any basis in equal rights between author and user. Technical measures for copyright protection in the education sector are not build on any ethical justification and as such, any legal justification is doomed to fail society.
If the assumption, copyright is needed to promote creativity and innovation, is true, then this has to be true world-wide, otherwise what would spark creativity and innovation would be properties of the respective society. And if the assumption were true, if the author must be credited with copyright for continuous creativity and innovation, then any referral of copyright by law instead of choice must per definition hinder creativity and innovation of authors (e.g. copyright of employer instead of employee).
CC Non-Commercial is not itself a bad license but it is terrible for the use cases most people think it is for. It does NOT just prevent people from outright selling your work. You should not use NC for anything that might get used in a creative context (that is not a pastiche because that is often allowed by local copyright law). You need to provide every downstream recipient with the same rights and obligations. A downstream recipient cannot use the material for mainly commercial purposes. The literal job of a t-shirt-print shop is to make money by printing material onto t-shirts. Since you need to give them a copy of the work, you are making them a downstream recipient. They cannot print a T-Shirt with the image or comic you want to have for money without violating license terms. If you attach a NC license to something that you want people to be able to print onto T-Shirts, then you are discriminating by license against those that do not have access to a T-Shirt print machine themselves.
No, you cannot simply put “car-free (anything)” onto existing structures. Not even for a day. You might find a Sunday at home with family enjoyable. Other people have their family far away, or have their religious rest day on another day of the week. You can especially not simply impose car-free anything in societies where the executive is known for sticking to the word of law instead of exercising compassion and kindness. You have to first provide reliable alternative structures, then you can require car-freedom. With anything else, you will necessarily put up new barriers for people who previously circumvented societies existing barriers by car. Alternative structures should accommodate most people by public transport, 24/7, but also allow for automated and sheltered individual transport for those who cannot, for whatever reason, use public transport. Golf carts and other micro cars are an interesting and affordable opportunity. These cannot be tied to “disability permits” since any administrative process for acquiring a permit is long and bound to deny some requests because the word of law is not suitable for accommodating each and every individual situation. Most importantly, requiring a permit is constructing a barrier where there was non previously. An interesting approach was the self-signed outdoor leisure “permit” in Paris, 2020, during the Covid-19 pandemic. Signing a document might impose enough self-regulation onto people who can use alternative modes of transport with ease.