So literally yes you can avoid the review... until you manage to convince your local government to pass their own version of this law, or vote out the existing people if they are against this thing you didn't think you had to care about because it was already law. And the slated time is within a year, so good luck accomplishing that in time.

Also please note the rules of this forum: Please don't comment on whether someone read an article. "Did you even read the article? It mentions that" can be shortened to "The article mentions that".

I'm sure there's probably a few comments I missed, but idk if I'd say there's proof of countless here or in the article.

It does seem like it'd have a chilling effect if the article's interpretation is correct, and other comments here also stated that the EU commission wanted to have a central registry to minimize the overhead.

You ever buy a phone? You are directly enabling a chain of groups to harm people (in the name of creating that phone).

You ever give a dollar to a homeless man? You might be directly contributing to them harming themselves (or possibly just letting them buy food/drink).

Heck even your example about your sister, I think some people would argue that it's still the moral choice.

Clearly there's a spectrum here. Black and white thinking and statements aren't helping and shouldn't be the basis for policy decisions.

Conventional forces aren't deployed in many instances where regular drone strikes are used, thus the country didn't feel it was the right risk/cost to deploy conventional forces.

At the very least, it's a statement that deserves more debate, and I'd point to the many examples of how reducing cost and risk tends to increase the rate of an activity.

Plus the Supply Side Economics wiki article, right below the "Not to be confused with trickle-down economics", contains a huge box pointing out the many issues with the article, including but not limited to "Needs more academic or scholarly research, rather than newspaper articles." and "contains weasel words: vague phrasing that often accompanies biased or unverifiable information."

I also was trying to google it and saw what the other commenter saw btw. The AI overview on Google says "Yes, they refer to the same core economic concept, but supply-side economics is the formal, academic term, while trickle-down economics is a popular and critical label for it. Both argue that cutting taxes and reducing rules for businesses and rich people will help the whole economy". And it references: https://mattbruenig.com/2013/01/07/on-trickle-down-economics... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trickle-down_economics https://study.com/learn/lesson/video/demand-side-vs-supply-s... https://www.annenbergclassroom.org/glossary_term/supply-side...

I've seen discussions around how it can be more confusing than the current system, and can reduce confidence in the election.

A lot of these examples are pretty subjective or missing context...

There are of course other decisions that might help cope, like moving to one of the few walkable cities we have or structuring your life to reduce the lifestyle, but those all have a lot of other effects like completely upending your current life.

The "optimal" drinking temperature of espresso is still considered higher than 50 degrees, like 60-65 degrees, though of course that is subjective, but the nice aspect of serving it hotter is that those that enjoy it hotter can have it and then it cools quickly and the customer can choose when to enjoy it or get to enjoy it at multiple temps.

"This doesn’t mean drinking room-temperature coffee exclusively. The complete experience encompasses the entire temperature journey." and "High temperatures deliver immediate aromatic impact—the unique, irreplaceable value of fresh coffee."

I'm also not sure bitterness should be considered a defect in coffee, it's part of the flavor profile and actually peaks in perception at a higher temperature according to that article.

It was a pop culture example of incentives gone wrong to hopefully support why incentives aren't clear cut.

We also regularly see how the incentives we see as outsiders (and somewhat insiders) are regularly perverted. For the VW emissions scandal someone could have argued that the incentives were plain and clear, "Design better engines", but they instead went with "Design better ways to scam the tests". This is on top of the way companies will mask their true incentives, like how renewable energy programs are sometimes actually just the smart financial decision but it'll be portrayed as part of the green movement.

To include some explicit personal opinion, I can't throw a stone without hitting a news story about a company that thought they could get away with something but then eventually got called out by it... and they ultimately still got away with it.

We don't "know" anything unless we are at that company in particular and part of the management conversations. We at best can theorize based on incentives, but that's assuming companies and people are logical, which is a large assumption. I could easily see someone in the midst of layoffs and reduction of overhead initiatives thinking that the solution is to convince everyone you do payouts, but actually minimize payouts, which you could do by creatively using scopes.

Off the top of my head, we've recently had shortages of fresh strawberries because of weather in California, a shortage of peas because of weather too, and various changes in Trump's tariffs were done to try and alleviate the rising cost of certain fruit and veg.