Yep, if they can control thought patterns, they can control what you do, and then they can control what you want
The end result being "well why wouldn't I want ads that show me personalized ads? I'm likely to give more of a shit", not knowing that you're signing yourself up for potentially even limiting your nuances Surveillance Capitalism style
Keeping away from X is more of a health thing honestly,
I know at least for me, it leaves me worse off reading through posts on there even if I've tried to fight them
as a former cashier, fuck talking to people, the mind's enough
honestly no, you'd hypothetically probably be better off putting something in your bag than risk being one of those times the machine asks a worker over to scan shit
yeah they just work to get their own Shariah-Law
from June 20th
LETS GOOOOOOOO
Well okay but what do you want her to do then, not treat people like she treats dogs?
if you want a different class just get more girlfriends
Oh trust me, how pathetic the situation is wasn't lost on me lmao
Honestly reading up on Von der Leyen apparently getting away with that, wtf. Hopefully New York Times lawsuit will follow with appropriate results this year. The very least they could do is replace her with what's likely a dime a dozen.
The extreme right shouldn’t be the only platform that demands a change.
100%, it's just about balancing that with also a stable EU that allows influence that's pro citizens (or more ideally humanity)
I can only concede to needing structural improvements, tho I wanna stress that I think it was fair decision-making overall in the moment as the EP did get final say, (when we're saying that Weber was EPs choice, which again misses the nuance that he managed to come out on-top but lacking more than 50% to even have a majority of votes (182/376 when EP has 751 seats), with nobody wanting to coalition, which is what matters, just like with coalitions needing a majority of seats to form government in parliamentary systems)
An army would definitely also need a clear "fuck no, im out" option for every decision anyway, or a lot less resources than I'm currently comfortable looking at them being gung-ho about. My understanding is that the cooperation means a lot less collective money spent due to each country's specializations, but that is probably something where each nation need absolute "yes/no" power in regards to committing actual bodies to a cause.
The Spitzenkandidat system is not part of EU law, but more of a political agreement that was hyper new and with no obligation, and saying that the European Parliamanet through the spitzenkandidat should be the only voice ironically weakens the voice of national governments, particularly for smaller and less powerful countries that we want to account for. (You voiced something akin to that too)
Most people also probably couldn't tell you the process of the EP or focused much on how your vote would affect EP voting, so it's hard to on its own justify to have a democratic mandate (not that you can't take it into account. I like the idea, though I think I'm stuck between it either requires more teaching voters about bureaucratic processes that are going on, or is too much logistical tactical voting to take account for when voting). It also wasn't a real majority result in the EP, which both undermines its practical use, but also more importantly the European Council proposed a compromising team of candidates, and the EP still has to confirm the commission president and carried through with doing so. Compromise is a huge part of being in a democracy.
Modern solutions for modern problems, ie, update as needed (and algorithms potentially invented)
Alternatively hide it under the floorboards, with a nail over it and a hammer nearby as needed