This is not a game of numbers, numbers would have some weight if decisions were affecting everyone equally, but the EU isn't homogeneous, foreign policy issues affect different countries differently depending on geography, culture and history e.g. Central Europe is much less exposed to adverse events, dependencies and risks than the periphery.

As I said before, now it's not the time for coercive changes, wait until integration takes its course and makes the political environment approximately the same for all members, the EU is far from that now.

> but it was the only way to convince countries to form the EU.

Then don't alter the deal and ask everyone to pray for not altering it any further.

> There is no alternative to supporting Ukraine as much as possible.

Depends on what each of the EU members considers possible and what risky - forcing some countries to go against their economic and political security will most likely lead to re-partitioning of Europe and another age of European wars.

It's quite disturbing to observe the continuous lack of an honest conversation about the political realities in Europe, which is precisely how the leading countries of the EU blew Ukraine / Russia... removing veto power only reduces the incentives for that to ever happen.

It's quite disingenuous to blame the veto power for lack of discussion on important issues, if anything it's an argument in favor of the veto, because the only reason to avoid discussion when you lack coercive power is weak arguments... and there's no need to waste time with such nonsense.

> Removing the veto will expose some nations "true colors" in ways that most do not anticipate.

Another slippery argument - there is absolutely no reason to hide the "true colors" of veto-capable members you disagree with, actually the opposite is true, one will have to come up with more, more convincing and true-color-exposing arguments in order to apply pressure via the electorate of the true colors.

> It's not all sunshine and rainbows of agreement among the EU member states.

No it's not, there are shady forces who dream about coercion for the worse.

Hopefully it well be vetoed by more than one. There is no realistic alternative to veto in the situation the EU is in. It could be an option later on, they have to be patient, now is the worst time to move towards coercive powers.

Especially under such a nonsensical pretext:

>> Von der Leyen uses Orbán defeat to push for end of veto in EU foreign policy

Orban was defeated, democracy worked, veto power is no longer under the threat of abuse, if it ever was. A lot of other issues could be improved in the EU, do that instead of fixing what's not broken.

Unfortunately "trusted people" don't grow on trees... but those who do grow to the highest positions of power, with the most destructive weaponry under their control, ask for trust with stuff like: "No foreign wars", "I'll end that conflict on day one"... "after bringing prices back down".

With that said, changing the conversation from violence to trust in the ideas and people who control it, is a worthwhile endeavor.

>> The rational conclusion of doomerism is violence

That's quite backwards, violence is an irrational response to today's problems. Demonizing the discussion of those problems as "violence" can't be trusted - if the discussion stops, a rational solution will never be found.

The comment you're trying to explain is conflating different groups of people and that makes it virtually meaningless.

Definitely hard for a home fab but how about a community fab? Not necessarily a geographic community.

Gain is obtained by the easiest means available. Your narrow definition of profit is seldom the easiest, cheating is far "superior" especially when it's legal for some.

> None of this requires taking anything away from any other party.

"required" and "preferred" (e.g. because it's far easier) are different like night and day.

Weimar says inflation creates fascism too. Not surprising because scientifically speaking, any sufficiently developed inflation is austerity by another name.

War puts the blame on the president even more directly.

>> Especially when the US is a net exporter from oil and could conceivably protect domestic industries from the same?

The US is a huge net importer of goods. The oil surplus is rather small, has been recorded only for the last 3 years and it can't meaningfully change the US balance of trade.

> shocking energy and transportation prices, raising the costs of exports from every other country... and the US could conceivably protect domestic industries from the same?

Nothing will be protected, quite the opposite, the US will be the country hardest hit by inflation because, given the huge net imports, we are the country that benefits the most from unimpeded trade and lower cost of production in other countries.

Trumps tariffs didn't decrease the trade deficit, in fact the deficit for 2025 was significantly higher than the pre-covid 2019. The deficits for Feb and Mar 2025 were the highest monthly deficits in history, beating the previous records by almost 100%.

>> Let’s say your goal was to reduce globalization

"reducing globalization" is a meaningless term, reducing the standard of living is what matters, choking international trade will cause higher reduction in the US than in other countries.

> I mean it’s high risk and maybe dumb, but I wouldn’t put it past the current thought leaders to turn against traditional free market ideology.

"Ideology" is a fig leaf, what matters is the money and power in the hands of the most special interest groups, it's a small club and you ain't in it.

That is true for all game platforms, experience takes care of it, don't give up.

About compilation time concerns, it doesn't seem to be a problem with Bevy, there's a fast compile mode with very reasonable performance.

However, I didn't see any scripting, there are scripting options for rust, it would be good to have bindings for some rust-like scripting.

Politics - proper guardrails, adapting the legal framework to accommodate AI and make sure it doesn't benefit only preselected few.

Something that can and should be done yesterday is to stop the capital drain out of the economy and into accelerated, war-motivated AI development - there's no need for war-AI per se but clearly it's the most likely reason for the capital drain and rush.

Once the rush and wars stop, and some capital is made available for the rest of the economy, the latter can adapt to the introduction of AI at a normal pace, that should include legislative safeguards to support competition and prevent monopolization of AI and information sources.

AI excels in both making weapons of all kinds and effectively targeting them, as the resent war has shown - AI is more dangerous, and can be more destructive, than all weapons taken together.

I don't know if it's amusing but the comparison is incorrect. Doing it in public is not legal. These laws are about the public part, not about the doing part.

Carlin's quote in this thread suffers from the same problem, he was eager to say something amusing, instead of correct, and did it prematurely.

Fixing politics is first otherwise you'll never get to anything like Star Trek, not even close, not even externally resembling it.

From the get go it looked like an engineered "Suez Crisis", on the inside and out. Nobody with real power is that dumb.

> Hard to disagree and hard to see how America recovers from this.

Hard or not, there's no alternative to recovery.

That was changed.