A point missing here is electing politicians who actively hinder development of renewables, which has an impact by magnitudes larger than all these individual decisions.
And simply using the same media to spread pro-democracy content in the same way (not boring, giving people sense of identity). It’s weird that democratic entities seem to not have figured this out, as if all what they had going was to be the establishment and not an actual message. Democracy is the political system by and for people, so how is it that it’s losing in reaching the people?
But currently establishment parties are losing ground to others (often right wing) so you‘d think they‘d come up with something, not directly to serve the people but to protect themselves. But they can’t and it’s likely because they don’t stand for anything other than status quo. Can’t survive in information age when you don’t have any message.
Why are there rarely counter-campaigns for all of these? Passivity of governments towards this is so weird. They occasionally mention banning social media and at the end just do nothing. Why not promote their views too.
Top irony is watching a journalist whining about how this “makes us dependent on China” because they sell infrastructure for renewables, as if it was not plainly our fault for having failed to, and obstinately continue to refuse investing in it, despite it being an obvious way to go for Europe.
Yeah, it is indeed external influence which somewhat competes with democracy. What’s really bad is the reaching of consensus within the government via mostly trust in designated experts, instead of the voters individually studying the topic.
Ok and they still need majority vote.. often, at least? In which case there seem to be a lot of politicians who are just misinformed (if the lobbying has negative consequences), which doesn’t relate to lobbying specifically but their general decision making.
So mostly not a consequence specifically of lobbying, if the majority votes due to actual conviction. Rather of disinformation/laziness, which will affect non-lobby initiated proposals too.
The part with the smaller committees sounds anti-democratic. The later is a different problem (politicians being misinformed/lazy is not specific to lobbying)
So the lobbying is, in each particular instance, of potentially 100+ people (in the case of EU parliament 300 or so +), likely across parties? That seems difficult to organize, at first sight.
The reality of the situation is more or less clear, but it helps to understand how things are supposed to work. They make their case and then what? does the audience decide on its own? Otherwise it seems difficult to buy the entire.. voting majority?
That “ready” is just typical political advertising speech. Could have been worded more carefully, but it’s forgivable. As long as the git repo and website correctly identify it as a demo/prototype, it seems fine to me. E.g. not using the security enclave is totally fine for a demo. It doesn’t affect the general protocol design. There’s a lot of hostility both to these initiatives as well as to the EU (often by different actors, there’s e.g other countries pushing for less privacy respecting mechanisms), so the clever criticism tends towards nitpicking. There’s actually merit in releasing such an ambitious project as open source and so early, which even with the nitpicking and negativity, is a good thing.
What ideology?
A point missing here is electing politicians who actively hinder development of renewables, which has an impact by magnitudes larger than all these individual decisions.
And simply using the same media to spread pro-democracy content in the same way (not boring, giving people sense of identity). It’s weird that democratic entities seem to not have figured this out, as if all what they had going was to be the establishment and not an actual message. Democracy is the political system by and for people, so how is it that it’s losing in reaching the people?
But currently establishment parties are losing ground to others (often right wing) so you‘d think they‘d come up with something, not directly to serve the people but to protect themselves. But they can’t and it’s likely because they don’t stand for anything other than status quo. Can’t survive in information age when you don’t have any message.
Plenty of catchy slogans to be made based on reality. Problem with majority of establishment parties is lack of motivation, they stand for nothing.
Why are there rarely counter-campaigns for all of these? Passivity of governments towards this is so weird. They occasionally mention banning social media and at the end just do nothing. Why not promote their views too.
Hundreds of millions? That might be exaggerating a bit.
Saw a journalist whining about “dependency on China” because they sell infrastructure for renewables.. you can’t make this up
Top irony is watching a journalist whining about how this “makes us dependent on China” because they sell infrastructure for renewables, as if it was not plainly our fault for having failed to, and obstinately continue to refuse investing in it, despite it being an obvious way to go for Europe.
Yeah, it is indeed external influence which somewhat competes with democracy. What’s really bad is the reaching of consensus within the government via mostly trust in designated experts, instead of the voters individually studying the topic.
Ok makes sense, we then have basically indirect influence of the majority via trust in smaller groups of designated specialists.
Ok and they still need majority vote.. often, at least? In which case there seem to be a lot of politicians who are just misinformed (if the lobbying has negative consequences), which doesn’t relate to lobbying specifically but their general decision making.
So mostly not a consequence specifically of lobbying, if the majority votes due to actual conviction. Rather of disinformation/laziness, which will affect non-lobby initiated proposals too.
The part with the smaller committees sounds anti-democratic. The later is a different problem (politicians being misinformed/lazy is not specific to lobbying)
So the lobbying is, in each particular instance, of potentially 100+ people (in the case of EU parliament 300 or so +), likely across parties? That seems difficult to organize, at first sight.
But why do individual politicians or groups have the power to get these things through? Is it not subjected to a majority vote or something?
The reality of the situation is more or less clear, but it helps to understand how things are supposed to work. They make their case and then what? does the audience decide on its own? Otherwise it seems difficult to buy the entire.. voting majority?
That “ready” is just typical political advertising speech. Could have been worded more carefully, but it’s forgivable. As long as the git repo and website correctly identify it as a demo/prototype, it seems fine to me. E.g. not using the security enclave is totally fine for a demo. It doesn’t affect the general protocol design. There’s a lot of hostility both to these initiatives as well as to the EU (often by different actors, there’s e.g other countries pushing for less privacy respecting mechanisms), so the clever criticism tends towards nitpicking. There’s actually merit in releasing such an ambitious project as open source and so early, which even with the nitpicking and negativity, is a good thing.
What’s the official stage of it? was it already intended to be released? If not it might be less of an issue.
Anyway it’s good that it’s open source. At the very least it encourages public discussion and in this case noticing the flaws.
Why is this specific to games? Seems to apply to any software?