It isn't, of course. It's just an article of faith now that anything Europe must be replaced. Anything that particularly gives something to do with Europe power is a threat to them.
During the referendum, it was a different story. Just the EU that was the problem. Nobody is talking about leaving the single market, no sirree!
This is the dilemma in a nutshell. There are lots of incredibly smart people working in the web3 space who are aware of its limitations, but for every one of those, there are 1000 people just trying to make as much money as possible.
I think what this points out is that the problem isn't government regulation, it's incompetent design, engineering, procurement, and construction.
The stories in the US about VC Summer and Vogtle construction failures do not point to government regulation being the problem, they point to basic flaws throughout the construction process. Design of the AP1000 that is "unconstructable" according to the EPC contractor, who then goes on to build their own unproven design, which then requires an external check. The problem wasn't that the design had to be certified by the government, the problem was that design wasn't in touch with construction.
But is the automotive industry really the main customers for TSMC? Judging by all the news I read about the company, the main reason for the hype is that they are always on the bleeding edge of semiconductor manufacturing, which isn't usually something that you'd find in the automotive sector.
And assuming that the automotive industry is the target customer: Volkswagen has their biggest plant in Saxony, which is their main EV plant. Also, Saxony is reasonably close to Brandenburg where Tesla is currently building their factory.
"Big pockets" isn't really true in this aspect. Part of the problem with the automotive chip crisis is that car companies are stingy customers and treat their suppliers badly, with insane contracts. So when production was stopped, they cancelled orders. When they restarted production, not having any stock, suppliers gave them the middle finger because they had other less stingy customers to serve.
Automotive is influential, but all their suppliers hate them with a passion.
"Would you say that you are free to express your opinion in public or do you have to be careful with certain or many topics?" („Würden Sie sagen, man kann seine Meinung in der Öffentlichkeit frei äußern oder muss man bei einigen oder vielen Themen vorsichtig sein?“)
As a German, I believe that I am free to express my opinion, nevertheless I would say that there are obviously many topics of discussion where one has to be careful just because there is lots of potential to be misunderstood.
The term for this (most commonly in social sciences research ?) is 'double barreled question'. It is bad specifically because you do not know which question is being answered.
The obvious bias of this website is...obvious.
Often I don't feel free to express my views in the US, not because there are social consequences but because it is simply not a space where my opinion is useful or valid. E.g., I don't feel free to express my views publicly about other peoples parenting decisions.
The article posted here starts with an outcome and then takes a poorly written poll question as the sole piece of evidence to support its preformed conclusions.
The poll in no way supports the statement: "The view of Germans that they are living without free speech would be of little surprise. What is most disconcerting is that they seem to reconciled to living without this basic human right."
Even if the poll supported the first sentence, it doesn't even COME CLOSE to supporting the second one.
Turley is extremly biased and the whole article is ridiculous.
Even the article that he cites is from "die Welt" which itself is a pretty biased right conservative medium.
I think it is way more problematic how he intentionally misinterprets a survey of 1283 people to spread the constructs in his head.
yup...the article started with an outcome and a belief and found sought evidence to justify it. That this is the best evidence they can find? really?
It's not about agree or disagree...its just that if this is the best argumentation you can do for your point and hold that opinion in good faith, you should probably re-evaluate your point before you try and convince others of it.
Characterizing Turley as “biased” and “right conservative” is pretty disingenuous. A few years ago I would have called him a pretty standard Hacker News liberal: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonathan_Turley
> In appearances on Countdown with Keith Olbermann and The Rachel Maddow Show, he called for criminal prosecution of Bush administration officials for war crimes, including torture.[21]
> He has opined that the Supreme Court is injecting itself into partisan politics.[29] He frequently has expressed the view that recent nominees to the court hold extreme views.[30]
> Turley described U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder in an op-ed as President Barack Obama's sin-eater, writing:
> “For Obama, there has been no better sin eater than Holder. When the president promised CIA employees early in his first term that they would not be investigated for torture, it was the attorney general who shielded officials from prosecution. When the Obama administration decided it would expand secret and warrantless surveillance, it was Holder who justified it. When the president wanted the authority to kill any American he deemed a threat without charge or trial, it was Holder who went public to announce the ‘kill list’ policy.”
I think it’s more accurate to say Turley is a libertarian-leaning liberal in a party that’s closed ranks around its statist wing and thrown its libertarians completely under the bus. (And I say that as a statist who didn’t agree with Turley back then!)
Turley is best known among "liberals" for having supported the impeachment of President Bill Clinton, suing Barack Obama, opposing the ACA, supporting President Trump's extralegal redirection of funds to his border wall project, and opposing Trump's impeachment. I don't think he's a pretty standard Hacker News liberal.
I'm not sure I remember any time during my adult life where the Democratic party had a libertarian wing. I'm curious what you think are examples of libertarian Democrats. People like Feingold and Wyden get cited here because they're ardent about conventionally-construed civil liberties, but that's just a small part of what a libertarian is.
He also called for Bush to be prosecuted for “war crimes,” opposes the death penalty, etc. And lots of Hacker News liberals opposed Obama for drone strikes, surveillance, etc.
I recall a pretty strong civil libertarian wing among democrats during the Bush era. I’d say Howard Dean at least had some libertarian tendencies, such as supporting gun rights.
Lots of Democrats support gun rights. The Illinois death penalty was eliminated by a Republican governor. That doesn't make them Libertarians. No Democrat supports eliminating the Department of Education, for instance.
In the US, there are certain opinions for which you'll suffer repercussions from public shaming to losing your livelihood to getting taken down from social media. For example, last year you couldn't discuss the lab leak theory of covid. When you discuss these topics, you need to 'be careful.'
I think your translation is slightly imprecise. It’s unclear in the English whether the “you” in “you are free to express your opinion” is being used as the 2nd-person pronoun (i.e., equivalent to German Sie) or as the generic pronoun (i.e. man).
For those who can’t read the German version: it’s the latter.
Unfortunately there is no way to distinguish these two in English other than using the somewhat dated pronoun “one”. It usually doesn’t cause any confusion but I think in this particular case, the answer is different depending on the meaning. I might feel safe to say my opinions, because I don’t believe anything particularly controversial, but still think “one” might need to be careful depending on the particular content of “one”‘s views.
Most often, I don't worry about being misunderstood, but that people will overestimate my interest in debating a topic to some ultimate viewpoint or stalemate. I like trading a couple of comments - asking a question, hearing a bit from others, but I'm not there for a showdown. It's easier to feel this out amongst your circles of friends and acquaintances, but the scope explodes on the internet. I run a sports forum and I'm frequently amazed at people debating a subjective non-topic like their life depends on it. I have no idea where they find the time.
"Careful" is not a perfect translation of "vorsichtig". "Vorsicht" has a connotation of avoiding danger. So if you have to be "vorsichtig" to avoid being misunderstood, that doesn't just imply that there is potential to be misunderstood, it also implies that it's dangerous to be misunderstood.
In Germany you can't advocate for far-right organizations (or the German communist party!) because there has been .. trouble with that kind of thing in the past.
Die Linke is in fact the successor to the Communist Party, although their ideology has shifted over time.
KPD (Kommunistische Partei Deutschlands) — in East Germany, merged with SPD (Sozialdemokratische Partei Deutschlands) in 1946 to form SED. In West Germany, banned after 1956.
SED (Sozialistische Einheitspartei Deutschlands) - ruled East Germany until the democratic transition in 1989. Rebranded as PDS in 1990.
PDS (Partei des Demokratischen Sozialismus) - Merged with the minor party WASG in 2007 to form Die Linke.
Yes they are the successor. But does that matter? The CDU was founded mainly by previous members of the Zentrum party. That was the party that voted with the NSDAP for the "Ermächtigungsgesetz" that gave Hitler the power over germany.
But the party changed over time and today it doesnt matter anymore. Same goes for die Linke in my opinion. The only thing that should count, are the targets of a party.
I honestly don't know what the perception of people is that they compare modern day US with the Stasi times.
I'm serious, the comparison is so out of this world, but I keep hearing it.
Tell me anything that is politically incorrect that you could say in a bar that will get you tortured/executed/imprisoned.
I'm really not saying that this political correctness craze is any good and I'm pretty much on the it's too much in many cases side, but the degrees between getting bad looks and a discussion that gets heated.
Whenever I also have this argument, some people go nut picking and get me a couple of example where you could say that, I'm not even saying those don't exist, and they are terrible, it's just not even close to systematic and nothing to do with the Stasi times.
Also in regards to Germany, have you ever been there? I know it's anecdotal but people basically there just speak their minds, I've heard mall kinds of right wing politically incorrect stuff, on both sides.
I'm fairly sure that at any point in history there was a fairly large set of controversial opinions, voicing of which could cause you trouble. Number of opinions you could voice that would get you in very serious trouble is fairly low right now in Germany.
Obviously the magnitude of the trouble you would get in differs. However if you are not careful you still will get into trouble. It is as if you read in a lot of opinions in my statement that simply isn't there.
I think it's really hard to come up with a good metric for freedom of speech with the amount of effort you usually put into online comments. But I bet there are NGOs with various opinions on the topic that rate countries. For example Germany is #13/180 in the Reporters Without Borders ranking of freedom of press https://rsf.org/en/ranking_table, which probably correlates well with garden variety definitions of freedom of speech.
Yes and the reason why we aren't ranked higher is that the press was not properly protected by police at right wing and anti-corona-measure protests.
We were ranked at place 11 but were downranked cause of continous attacks on journalists.[1] But the people wo did this are those who cry loudly: "We have no freedom of speech". I even read in this thread "Germany is a totalitarian dystopia with no free speech"
Those people are so far away from reality. I am concerned they might never find back.
"Germany's Network Enforcement Law, or NetzDG … requires social media companies to block or remove content that violates one of twenty restrictions on hate and defamatory speech in the German Criminal Code," Diana Lee wrote for Yale Law School's Media Freedom and Information Access Clinic. "In effect, the NetzDG conscripts social media companies into governmental service as content regulators," with millions of euros in fines hanging over their heads if they guess wrong. - https://reason.com/2020/10/12/german-style-internet-censorsh...
They rightly fear that in 2-3 years, when the pandemic is likely over everywhere and other people have figured out how to commercialize the IP, they won't be the only ones producing their vaccines.
This isn't going to help India or anyone in the short term and there'll be more than enough doses for every person on Earth by next year. Why should they not retain the IP rights to make a profit on new generations that need to be vaccinated or potential booster shots? The manufacturing capacity will have been built up so scarcity won't be a problem at that point.
Is it reasonable to believe that the knowledge that the USA doesn't intend to support the pursuit of damages for patent violation would have an impact on manufacturers now.
If you held a firm conviction that in the near future you'd be able to act on the IP without being in violation, would you be more motivate to progress toward doing so more swiftly?
As a patent holder, would you feel more secure that you could issue cease and desist notices and peruse damages after the waiver is lifted?
Simple, the Indian vaccine factories already have licenses to produce these vaccines but are struggling to scale up production: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-india-55571793 (in part because they can't get some of the supplies needed, which maybe could be helped if the patents for those are also waived and other factories can help to make those...)
This is about mRNA vaccines, but similar things exist for viral vector vaccines as well. Technology transfer, bioreactor bags, fill-finish capacity, all of these things are bottlenecked till next year basically.
J&J uses a very rare human adenovirus, AZ uses a more common chimpanzee adenovirus. J&J also has the so-called 2PP modification on the Spike protein compared with the AZ vaccine. Good writeup here: https://berthub.eu/articles/posts/genetic-code-of-covid-19-v...
I think you'd be seeing some improvements as we are seeing some upward adjustments in production capacity projections on a 3-6 month timeframe now that everyone is spending so much to get additional doses because of political pressure, but it wouldn't be nearly enough to change the situation drastically as some have been claiming.
