6 minutes is the European standard for 'late', and I suspect the article just made a typo and meant to say "only 60% of Deutsche Bahn's long-distance trains arrived five minutes late or less" instead of "only 60% of Deutsche Bahn's long-distance trains arrived less than five minutes late".
However, it's actually a double mistake, because for Fernverkehr (long distance travel), DB actually measures their delays in a totally differnt way from the regional trains. Instead of measuring how late each train is leaving the station, they instead they measure their punctuality based on how late each passenger is arriving at their final destination. This is only possible because people actually buy individual tickets for each journey on an ICE so they're actually able to track this information.
Yeah, that's sloppy writing on their part. This is a bit of industry lingo that needs to be explained in the article, and written more clearly.
Solar panel factories are often talked about in terms of the amount of power in panels they can deliver per year, so likely what they meant to write was "production line capable of delivering 200 MW of solar panels per year"
I don't really disagree, but it does make me wonder what the future of the right to asylum will look like if the lesson becomes "temporary asylum seekers will never go home, and you won't be allowed to force them because they've put down too many roots"
I worry that the backlash against this stuff is going to ensure that we're unable to help future waves of asylum seekers, which are certainly going to be coming.
Merz is a pig and a populist who is flailing about looking for distractions, but it's also frustrating how much discussion on this stuff turns to left-wing people reflexively defending and making excuses for something that most people can clearly see is a problem in modern European cities, and that problem is coming from predominantly young, poor, male, muslim migrants in parts of cities that are quickly becoming ghettoized.
Often people will just say that European chirstians have a horrible history of abuse towards women, which is of course 100% true, but also not really relevant when the question is "do we want to let in more of these people into the country, or less?"
Makes sense. PV is dirt cheap with or without subsidies, and there's already so much solar generation that every mildly sunny day produces so much solar that the electricity prices swing to zero before spiking back up when the sun goes down.
If subsidy money is going to be spent, it should be spent on things that people wouldn't do without a subsidy, and is productive for the grid. In this case, I think if anything for small, residential homes is going to be subsidized, it should be home batteries.
There is a hard speed limit on them. The thing about these Fatbike brands is that they are purposefully made it very very easy to disable the speed limiter, and make it widely known how to do it.
Fatbikes in the Netherlands are a group of e-bike brands that purposefully make it extremely easy to remove their government required speed regulator, and are particularly popular among certain demographics of young immigrant men to use as basically electric motorcycles (since they can be controlled with a thumb-throttle instead of pedaling).
Because there's a mixture of these bikes causing real problems on the roads, and them being popular young brown dudes, a lot of different forces in the Netherlands are pretty upset about them and want them banned.
Okay, that is a fair and relevant example. I do think it's worth noting though that Volvo is a bit of an outlier here. I also just don't see how we decouple from the USA without having trade barriers.
I mean, maybe there's things the EU or Sweden can or should do to force Volvo not to do that, but since they already let Volvo be bought up by China, I'm not sure it'd even be practical or possible.
Nobody relevant is moving production lines from Europe to America, because it'd be insane to do so with how fast the tariff rates are constantly changing, and the fact that the US Supreme Court could end up ruling that Trump isn't even allowed to set tariff rates. Even if the tariffs became stable though, european manufacturers won't move their production lines to the USA because most advanced manufacturing relies on a complex, global supply chain. This means that tons of parts for e.g. cars need to cross borders multiple times, and often get double or triple tariffed, making it more attractive to move the production line out of the USA, and just sell the finished car in the USA and eat the tariff once.
Our products being less competitive there due to tariffs will result in lower sales, and will mean that our companies will focus on other markets, which is a good thing. If our companies rely on exports to the USA in order to be solvent, then that makes us more vulnerable to the USA. A 15% tariff is not enough to drive our exporters out, because they still easily outcompete in lots of categories, but it makes it less attractive for them to sell to the USA when they could sell elsewhere, which is on the whole, a good thing IMO.
A tax on Big Tech for example could’ve been a firm response, both to hurt American interests and catalyze our migration away from their services.
No disagreement here. The EU representatives likely chose to not do that one so they could buy more time to be more prepared for a louder phase or the trade war (or for Trump to get bogged down in another topic and forget about Europe). It's looking unavoidable now, so I hope they go for a firmer approach that targets American big tech.
The new electric Polo is at a quite attractive price, and seems to be a fantastic car.
Ups! https://feddit.org/post/30686676/13307760
Ups! https://feddit.org/post/30686676/13307760
Quelle: Selbst zusammengestellt aus Daten von https://www.energy-charts.info/charts/power/chart.htm
Entschuldigung für das späte Quellepost, hat gedacht ich hätte es schon gemacht.
Ja, mehr erneubare und nicht genug Batteriespeichern bedeutet mehr Gas nutzung (oder Importe). Es ist auch gut weniger Kohl zu brennen.
Zum gluck ist das ausbau von Batteriespeichern jetzt sehr schnell: https://www.energy-charts.info/charts/installed_power/chart.htm?l=en&c=DE&legendItems=6w1&interval=month&year=-1
Ja, am anfang das hat mich auch genervt. Nicht sicher ob es eigentlich verbessert später im Video, oder ich war einfach mehr gewöhnt.
Es ist aber seiner 4. Video, also hoffentlich wird er lernen.
6 minutes is the European standard for 'late', and I suspect the article just made a typo and meant to say "only 60% of Deutsche Bahn's long-distance trains arrived five minutes late or less" instead of "only 60% of Deutsche Bahn's long-distance trains arrived less than five minutes late".
However, it's actually a double mistake, because for Fernverkehr (long distance travel), DB actually measures their delays in a totally differnt way from the regional trains. Instead of measuring how late each train is leaving the station, they instead they measure their punctuality based on how late each passenger is arriving at their final destination. This is only possible because people actually buy individual tickets for each journey on an ICE so they're actually able to track this information.
On the per-passenger metric, they say arriving at your final destination less than 15 minutes late is "punctual": https://ibir.deutschebahn.com/2025/de/zusammengefasster-lagebericht/entwicklung-der-geschaeftsfelder/geschaeftsfeld-db-fernverkehr/entwicklung-im-berichtsjahr/
This is the metric with which they hit only 60%
DB Regio reports an 89% punctuality figure for 2025 (down 1% from 2024). https://ibir.deutschebahn.com/2025/de/zusammengefasster-lagebericht/entwicklung-der-geschaeftsfelder/geschaeftsfeld-db-regio/entwicklung-im-berichtsjahr/
I don't doubt there are certain regions or lines where the regional and commuter trains are worse than your average ICE, but it's not the norm.
What does any of that have to do with democracy being a farce?
Yeah, that's sloppy writing on their part. This is a bit of industry lingo that needs to be explained in the article, and written more clearly.
Solar panel factories are often talked about in terms of the amount of power in panels they can deliver per year, so likely what they meant to write was "production line capable of delivering 200 MW of solar panels per year"
I don't really disagree, but it does make me wonder what the future of the right to asylum will look like if the lesson becomes "temporary asylum seekers will never go home, and you won't be allowed to force them because they've put down too many roots"
I worry that the backlash against this stuff is going to ensure that we're unable to help future waves of asylum seekers, which are certainly going to be coming.
Good! Fuck Washington.
Merz is a pig and a populist who is flailing about looking for distractions, but it's also frustrating how much discussion on this stuff turns to left-wing people reflexively defending and making excuses for something that most people can clearly see is a problem in modern European cities, and that problem is coming from predominantly young, poor, male, muslim migrants in parts of cities that are quickly becoming ghettoized.
Often people will just say that European chirstians have a horrible history of abuse towards women, which is of course 100% true, but also not really relevant when the question is "do we want to let in more of these people into the country, or less?"
You're a lost cause anyways. We're talking about saner countries.
Makes sense. PV is dirt cheap with or without subsidies, and there's already so much solar generation that every mildly sunny day produces so much solar that the electricity prices swing to zero before spiking back up when the sun goes down.
If subsidy money is going to be spent, it should be spent on things that people wouldn't do without a subsidy, and is productive for the grid. In this case, I think if anything for small, residential homes is going to be subsidized, it should be home batteries.
Believe it or not, cars are already banned from bikelanes and parks in Amsterdam. I hope this helps.
There is a hard speed limit on them. The thing about these Fatbike brands is that they are purposefully made it very very easy to disable the speed limiter, and make it widely known how to do it.
Fatbikes in the Netherlands are a group of e-bike brands that purposefully make it extremely easy to remove their government required speed regulator, and are particularly popular among certain demographics of young immigrant men to use as basically electric motorcycles (since they can be controlled with a thumb-throttle instead of pedaling).
Because there's a mixture of these bikes causing real problems on the roads, and them being popular young brown dudes, a lot of different forces in the Netherlands are pretty upset about them and want them banned.
Okay, that is a fair and relevant example. I do think it's worth noting though that Volvo is a bit of an outlier here. I also just don't see how we decouple from the USA without having trade barriers.
I mean, maybe there's things the EU or Sweden can or should do to force Volvo not to do that, but since they already let Volvo be bought up by China, I'm not sure it'd even be practical or possible.
Nobody relevant is moving production lines from Europe to America, because it'd be insane to do so with how fast the tariff rates are constantly changing, and the fact that the US Supreme Court could end up ruling that Trump isn't even allowed to set tariff rates. Even if the tariffs became stable though, european manufacturers won't move their production lines to the USA because most advanced manufacturing relies on a complex, global supply chain. This means that tons of parts for e.g. cars need to cross borders multiple times, and often get double or triple tariffed, making it more attractive to move the production line out of the USA, and just sell the finished car in the USA and eat the tariff once.
Our products being less competitive there due to tariffs will result in lower sales, and will mean that our companies will focus on other markets, which is a good thing. If our companies rely on exports to the USA in order to be solvent, then that makes us more vulnerable to the USA. A 15% tariff is not enough to drive our exporters out, because they still easily outcompete in lots of categories, but it makes it less attractive for them to sell to the USA when they could sell elsewhere, which is on the whole, a good thing IMO.
No disagreement here. The EU representatives likely chose to not do that one so they could buy more time to be more prepared for a louder phase or the trade war (or for Trump to get bogged down in another topic and forget about Europe). It's looking unavoidable now, so I hope they go for a firmer approach that targets American big tech.
It's silly to say the EU is capitulating though.