If I want to host videos on PeerTube, I want to do so on my own instance, and the process of setting up your own instance is not as easy as I would like. I’ve tried it a few times, ran into a wall, gave up and went back to YouTube with my tail between my legs.
For the Netherlands:
The local “kringloop” (closest translation would be goodwill) is also always a good place to check out for certain things.
The US really pissed away any strategic advantage it may have had with that little stunt sanctioning a few justices and prosecutors.
It made it plainly obvious to anyone paying attention that American software cannot be trusted, and caused a bunch of countries to start preparing their exit strategy for building down their dependence on American software.
And for what?.. So that they could be an annoyance to some people prosecuting the war criminal, and friend of the US government, Benjamin Netanyahu? That sounds like such a small win, if it causes you to lose the leverage completely.
Edit: Not that I mind. It’s a good thing that it’s this plainly obvious that we cannot trust a reliance on anything American.
It makes it cost a whole lot less political capital in order to get governments to move away from these dependencies.
I always took the term “apartheid state” to refer to the way Israel treats Palestinians both in the West Bank, which despite being a separate country is also under military occupation by Israel, and at home within Israeli borders
I’m not too worried about an AI destroying the world, but I am worried about someone in power over-relying on fallible AI and making a mistake of serious consequence as a result.
AI won’t plot to start WW3, but it might just get us there with the help of human incompetence.
I did not call euthanasia itself a part of the erosion of the west, I was simply mentioning at a general development.
In that case I must apologize. I misinterpreted what you meant with that erosion. I also shouldn’t have written it as a quote as I initially did, since it was paraphrasing and not a direct quote. I didn’t mean to misrepresent.
That still doesn’t change the rest of my argument, however.
Secondly, I don’t believe the parents should decide.
That’s fair. We differ in opinion on that, and I can see where you are coming from.
My issue with that, however, is that we then end up in a situation again where this child needs to spend ten years in whatever pain and agony they might be going through, just because they legally cannot make the decision by themselves.
Preferably that should not be happening, and giving the parents the ability to decide on their behalf is in my view an acceptable compromise to prevent that suffering from happening. While it is a decision with a lot more weight, we already do give parents a lot of power to make decisions for their child in other situations, so it is not entirely without precedent.
…Another country making mistakes doesn’t absolve the Netherlands if the Netherlands serves as law-inspo
I think this is a ridiculous take. The Netherlands cannot be held responsible for what it didn’t do itself.
You don’t understand. The child, while suffering extremely, is in no way able to consent to their killing. The state sanctions it as ok, as long as a list of criteria are met.
Which at that point becomes a decision that is made by the parents, not the state. The state can’t decide for you that you will be euthanised. That is a decision to be made either by the person in question, or in the case of a two-year-old their parents.
The alternative would be to not allow euthanasia on young children at all, and force this child to live with their disease and experience hopeless and unbearable suffering for ten years, until they are twelve years old. That was the old cut-off point for decisions like this.
The way I see it, is that giving parents to ability make this decision on their child’s behalf, in order to make sure their child doesn’t have to needlessly suffer, can be a good thing if done carefully and thoughtfully. The checks and balances are there to make sure that is gets done carefully and thoughtfully.
I certainly wouldn’t call that an erosion of the west as per your first comment.
This signals to other powers, who view the Netherlands as a role model that state sanctioned involuntary killing in medicine is fine, as long as you have a long list of reasons you can go through.
So because another country might not be deliberate in the way they implement their version of euthanasia, we shouldn’t be implementing our version of euthanasia?
Edit: Removed the quote characters around “erosion of the west”, because it isn’t a direct quote. It’s a paraphrasing, and it’s disingenuous of me to put that in quotes.
Euthanasia so often gets portrayed as if it is just like an option at the buffet table that you can chose if you so feel like it. But that is not even remotely like how the system is set up in the Netherlands at all.
The only case in which someone is even eligible for euthanasia is if they suffer from a chronic illness, for which there is no possible cure, and you effectively will have to endure undue suffering for the rest of your life. And as you say, at that point it is still up to the discretion of the doctor, who is in turn liable for that decision. There is a whole bunch of checks and balances to make sure that it doesn’t just become a free-for-all.
This is not some ploy by some reactionary government to eradicate “life unworthy of life”, as distal@lemmy.ml suggest
Censoring “prick” as “p****” makes it sound a lot worse than it actually is. I can think of other five-letter words starting with P…
Here we go again…
There is actually an interview online with the people who picked the colour of the path for the pilot project that caused the Netherlands to go with red for it’s bikepaths.
They initially wanted the bikepath to be yellow.
But when they went to inquire about cost, yellow tiles cost twice as much as red tiles. And red tiles would be clear enough for the purpose. So they decided to go with red for the pilot project instead.
The rest of the NL followed from there.
Edit: I do quite like the earthern red colour of Dutch bikepaths. It fits very well in the Dutch urban spaces which use a lot of brick.
Europe isn’t one country, and there is differences between places on which colour was picked.
The Netherlands was an early adopter and they picked red. So countries close to the NL (like Germany and Flanders in Belgium) and countries inspired by the Netherlands also defaulted to red.
Denmark went with blue, which is also in turn inspiring some countries to go with blue instead of red.
France seems to have gone with green, and by extention I’ve seen quite a few green bikepaths in the Francophone sphere. (Though Paris seems to have gone with purple for some of its paths?)
It doesn’t really matter which colour is picked, as long as it is distinctive colour that clearly communicates that this is a space for cyclists.
You’ve got to be able to laugh at yourself every now and then
Enough that they can tell with a decent amount of certainty whose social credit score should be lowered, once that gets inevitably introduced /s
(I don’t think that conspiratorially… It’s probably just data harvesting and extreme greed.)
I’ll bite… Why would that be my goal?
e-ID isn’t mandatory (it’s not even available in every country), but the form should be filled in with correct personal information.
They will need to verify whether the people who filled in the form are actual people who are eligible to sign the citizens’ initiative.
Using e-ID just makes the whole verification easier for everyone.
Given that this is part of the legislative process, and there is legal requirements for European Parliament to adhere to if the Citizen’s Initiative meets the threshold, I would argue that signing the petition has a similar weight to casting a ballot in an election.
Just like how you need to verify in an election that someone is legally allowed to vote in that election, this petition needs to verify whether someone is legally allowed to sign the petition.
If there was no verification of identity, hypothetically someone could fill the platform with junk petitions, which could all be signed by a bunch of Russian bots. It would completely undermine the democratic process.
So yes, I do believe identity verification is “strictly necessary” in this case
As the Citizen’s Initiative says:
Citizens must not be forced to identify themselves to access lawful online content or services unless strictly necessary, proportionate and provided by law.
I would argue in this case e-ID verification (or other verification of identity) is necessary and proportionate.
That’s just how these Citizen’s Initiatives work.
Since there are requirements for the European Parliament to address the concerns, they need a way to verify that the signatures are actually real and match to EU citizens.
They need some way to prevent spam which would make this democratic tool meaningless.
It’s a lot easier to cut off your own country from the internet than it is to cut off another country from the internet.
Packets will route through whatever path is available. So even if you cut the wires in the countries within your influence where you border with Russia, other countries that border Russia that you might still want to connect to may not do the same thing.
So physically disconnecting Russia is basically not happening.