"why can't California just ban the sale of them" -- because that infringes freedom too much? There are probably lots of special machines with tires (e.g. in construction, farming, mining) that absolutely need "bad tyres". Because only they work, e.g. due to construction form or physical properties like maximum pressure.

If some armchair person now goes here and outright bans all tyres that don't match some efficiency numbers ... then all of the users of such equipment will be punished. THAT would be an overreaching government action.

However, having some labels that indicate to those customers that care (and can care, because they don't have to consider other constraints) is actually something that enlarges freedom. You get the info, you can act on it, but you're still free to NOT act on it should the circumstances for that be okay. And ultimately it's you that decides this, not some government authority.

And perhaps for good, because the person you claim to do that never said this.

It's fun who critiques on tactics or people is often just blown out of propertion by people like you. Suddenly, the critique is seen as general, targeting all of Israel (e.g. the full population) and not just the current government, or the IDF.

IMHO, it is you that hate Israel.

By asking for escalation, or discussing existing escalation away, the conflict will never be solved. You'd need a full genocide to solve the conflict. Perhaps biblical right-wings want that again (they claim to have been ordered a genocide to the Kanaanites after the exodus by YHWH themselves).

But if you look at terrorist conflics (North-Irelands IRA, Basques ETA, Kolumbia's Sendero Luminoso and all the others) ... then exactly zero times was the conflict by years after years of escalation.

What you do, like many escalaters, is that you look for horrible acts of Hamas. And you find them, plenty. But you don't look at horrible acts of IDF, or the Settlers. You would find them, too. But you are not just by ignoring one conflict party totally. And thus you are totally unable to reason correctly. And then ALL of your conclusions are void.

IMHO if we want "to protect the children of Gaza" when we need to go after ALL people responsible for e.g. bombing whole houses, the the huge fields of rubble that used to be civilian towns, too. From the lowest soldier to the highest general or defense minister. We need to go after those people that made a plan to starve them, by hindering trucks with edibles into Gaza. And we need to go after those the recruited and trained them --- and don't get me wrong: "go after" here doesn't mean "execute a death penalty without or without a court verdict". JUST going after one originators of the cruelties will do ... not create piece. it will just raise the next generation of terrorists.

* you are in school and your marks are between two marks, e.g. between 1 and 2. You can voluntarily take the oral exam to swing the tide towards the 1 ... this is even a case for apprenticeship exams, not just normal school. * you are at the risk of not getting into the next class year. Often here the oral exam is mandatory.

Personally, I think this is great. Some people are better orally. But some have trouble, e.g. social anxieties. And some people are better theoretical, with a piece of paper. But other struggle with an "empty white paper". And since we don't want to test the difficulties of people, but their domain knowledge of e.g. mathematics, politics or electronic scheme design (again: think that this is also for apprenticeships), that we do both is IMHO a good thing.

The thing is that these cities aren't pricy for swiss people, with a swiss pay-cheque (err, direct bank-to-bank money transmit). It's all a result of decades long higher inflation there, that now has this extreme price difference. And with prices did their wages increase ... but not yours, visiting Switzerland. At least the country is so small you can just drive through. You don't need to go into one of their supermarket and see that all the stuff is 2x as costly as north, east, west or south of it ...

But yeah, prices play probably a huge role in this "livability" index.

Zürich (Zurich) is at place 3, while Wien (Vienna) is at 2. And I guess this has something to do with the spectacular low flat rents in Wien. They have lots of non-profit cooperatives that own the houses and take rent so that they can refurbish the houses and build new ones (1/4 of all flats in Austria is build by such cooperatives). All over Austria, 16% of all flats/houses are owned by them. But I guess in Wien it's even higher.

There are comparison sites that say that in München (Munich) you pay in average 1249 € for rent, while in Wien it is 872 €. Okay, I select the most expensive german town, so maybe this is rigged. But even with capital vs. capital Wien is cheaper.

https://stadtkosten.de/vergleich/munchen-vs-wien

https://stadtkosten.de/vergleich/berlin-vs-wien

The nicest town isn't "livable" if people can't live there because it's only for DINKS.

It wouldn't work e.g. in Germany since here we don't have "home owners associations" that reduce the freedom of whole housing areas. That is: you are "mostly" free in the first place to grow whatever you want.

Mostly ? because there is always complexity with law. For example, if you grow a huge tree that takes all the sun from your neighbor, then you're tapping into the freedom of your neighbor. And then the neighbor can ask you to remove or at least trim the tree ... absolute freedom almost always hinder others.

And so yes, there are cases where people though "My own freedom for a posh garden is diminished due to the biosphere of my neighbor, All the weed seeds are flowing to me". And people took others before court. And then each individual case is looked at. And often enough the case is just turned down because of the constitution guaranteeing freedom of expression.

And that, in turn, means that "obviously won't work in other countries" is wrong.

How US-Americans with one of the worst constitution and law systems of the western world constantly think that "only they" have something freedom-related is beyond me. If you look at your history ... you had slavery --- with your current constitution. You had genocide and trail of tears --- with your current constitution. You have gerrymandering --- with your current constitution. You sentence people to death but from 7482 death penalties of 1973-2004 a whole 4.1% were in error --- under your constitution. Each of these was or is an extreme reduction of people's freedom.

> For instance, you cannot use genetic studies to define a race

is weak. For millennia we had phenomena that science couldn't describe. For many different reasons. One can now say that due to this the phenomena simply don't exists, since they didn't had a sound scientific understanding base. But that was obviously wrong.

To give you one of thousands example, think of how long it took science e.g. to understand lightnings. You could analyze the lightnings by form, and you ended up with thousands of forms. And then you could just say "Oh, this is so unscientific (because by some arbitrary limit reached), in reality lightning doesn't exist".

If some phenomena 1) isn't yet 100% scientifically described, then this is perhaps just a sign that science isn't far enough, hasn't used the proper methodology?

This is BTW a reason why I like the german word for science better than the english one. In german, it's "Wissenschaft" -> "knowledge creation". It's not "Wissenhab" -> "knowledge having". The word itself, unlike the english one, transports the idea that our knowledge is still limited. And that science is a process, not some achieved state.

1) "race" isn't just some old-white-man western concept. If you go to China, then you see that they also has such a concept --- and a quite strong one about "Han chinese". Or some african tribes, they even thought wars (Tuts & Hutu in Ruanda). Maybe race isn't a genetic concept, but a sociology one, e.g. because humans for whatever reason want to have an "us and they" thingy. In such a case searching for race genetics is simply the wrong methodology. Rendering the approach invalid, but nothing else.

Which is simply wrong --- or at least only true if you look at only part of the education system.

But in Germany, there is also an education system to become Geselle, Meister, Techniker, Fachwirt --- things that many other countries don't have. And somehow people always ignore that.

And the Deutsche Bahn ... perhaps not the shining example. But ... look at France. They hardly have trains, e.g. there are small towns that only have 8 trains a day. To go by TGV from Bordeaux to Lyon you must pass Paris, hundreds of kilometers depart. It's like going from Kassel to Hamburg must go via Berlin. Also, the trains in UK are bad. And some countries, like Spain, or Greece, also hardly have tracks AND trains. While here, we actually tracks "everywhere" and even a bit too many trains, therefore the delay. But you can reach your destination, while in other countries there's no way. 5 weeks ago I went with ICE from Kassel to Regensburg --- for a mere 26 EUR (one way) because I booked in advance. Where else do you get that?

Employment situation bad... and yet there are some groups that constantly look to employ you. Every Aldi, Lidl has posters looking for people. The Bahn searches train drivers. Lot of transportation companies look for lorry drivers. The unemployment rate of Germany is at 3.9% -- only 7 EU countries better than us. Our 3.9% is e.g. better than the US. Did the situation get worse the last 3 years? Sure. But why? I'd point to Putin and Trump and some Mullahs (end of cheap gas, nonsensical customs, havoc in the straits of Hormuz).

Purchasing power wise Germany is at location 8 in the EU.

But hey, the typical complaining german gives to me the impression as if we're still the "Herrenrasse". We must always #1. As soon we're not #1 the end is nigh :-) Place 7 of 27 is totally bad, apparently.

However, if you select something in isolation, and then compare ONLY to the best, then you will always find that you're lacking. You had a 2 in english .. but there was this guy that had a 1 (in Germany that is better). You had a 2 in physics, but this lady had a 1. You had a 2 in sports, but again there was someone with a 1. And so on. And suddenly you think that you're the last of the students, because always there is someone better than you.

No, you must look at ALL the candidates, not just at those that are better. Compare the Bahn not just with Switzerland. Compare it with UK, France, Greece, Estonia Or ... heck, even the passenger railways system of the USA which sucks bollocks.

Do you know the "functional" Brother Grimm's tales?

Or the "dry" humor of Dieter Hallervorden if you're a bit older? (okay, Christian Ehring from extra3 is perhaps really dry ...)

Do you know the rigid songs of, say Nena or Einstürzende Neubauten? Or is the music of BAP functional to you?

Are the books of Andreas Eschbach dry? Or the lyrics of Ingeborg Bachmann?

Maybe local customs like or the cologne "Karneval" are dry you then? These days we have CSD's all over the place. Maybe not original german culture, but perhaps the german adaption is too rigid?

Do you actually KNOW german culture? Have you been here in school, for example? My guess: you don't really know german culture, at least not so much that you found stuff in it that you enjoy. But you certainly miss your home culture. This is the culture where you were brought up, where you know the language, the norms, the taboos etc. And something else is then alien to you, not comforting. But you already adopted german directness to express this non-comforting state in harsh and ugly words :-)

A lot of foreigners say that. Actually mostly english speaking ones. I never heard a turk say this. Perhaps it's linked to the willingness to learn the language, which is often low with english-speaking people?

No idea, but back to the story: my answer to this "I don't get the humor" is: I don't get spanish humor.

And the simple reason is that I don't speak spanish good enough. I get SOME of the british & US humor. But only a bit ... my language skill, albeit perhaps ok if you look at it, is still not good enough to detect the subtle details. IMHO that is the reason why e.g. Mr Bean was easy to export: he doesn't talk :-)

In any case: to get the local humor, you MUST learn the language and even the culture quite good. Otherwise, you simply don't get it.

It's surprisingly complex actually.

These records aren't really usable in real-life, e.g. to view a movie. When it rains, or is foggy.

Just mounting a maneuvering 3 m dish to your laptop isn't everyones most desired leisure ...

And most of this isn't really done to communicate. For that, most ham amateurs would use cell-phones, Facebook or whatnot. It's done for the sake of doing it. Or, in other words, to have an excuse to tinker with technical things.

That you can actually communicate is often just a consequence, a by-product. And the "communication" e.g. in contests to seek rare countries is actually really, really bland and boring. Translated to english: "Here is Mike, Calling Reunion, calling Reunion, calling Reunion, Mike here" - "Here is Jaques, Renunion, answering to Mike. I can your you very bad" - "Mike here, to Jaque. I can your you quite nice. And thanks for the talks ... calling Mongolia, calling Mongolia, here is Mike, calling Mongolia ..." --- and it's on PSK31 or CW even shorter.

You see, the ACTUAL communication is boring. The kick is probably to be able to manage and adjust your transceiver, wires, antenna, technical skills to actually be able to connect to these countries.

Or to be able to program and use in-real-life a sound compression algorithm with machine-learning and to test that with alike people on e.g. HF, Meteoscatter, via Satellite (which all produce very different channel characteristics).

Or to produce your own 6-layer PCP with an FPGA that actually does nice SDR algorithms.

It's a means to self-gratification.

That is actually not so good. First, all constitutions that I know of have a process of change, e.g. 2/3 majority in parliament, or in 2 houses or something. And note that I wrote "change", not "amend". The idea that one can only add things to a constitution is weird one --- but then again, I'm european and don't know the US constitution correctly, maybe the amendments delete outdated paragraphs?

But still, a process of change junk you wrote earlier is hardly "thoughtful", it's just natural.

However, in reality the US constitution sucked, and continues to suck. US people claim they are the epitome of freedom, but yet they were for hundreds of years the epitome of slavery. Or of genocide to native tribe (look up "Trail of Tears").

They claim they are the epitome of democracy, and yet they basically have only a 2-party system cemented in stone, with no fresh air ever. But even worse: there are so many cases of gerrymandering in the US --- a clear anti-democratic way of organizing elections --- and yet the oh-so-democratic constitution hasn't an answer to this. No way to give back real election power to the people.

The the US, elected people with stamina can hinder a democratic process by filibustering, nothing that we know of sane countries.

Apropos sane: have you heard about "government shutdown" of e.g. France, Sweden or Poland? That doesn't exist there. It's a laughing stock to some of us. Seems like a hefty wart in the US system, I personally wouldn't like to be some government employed person with the insecurity of "Do I get my money next month?". Not 100% sure, but perhaps this shutdown is a function of the US constitution?

The rest of the US justice system isn't particular good either. That's not exactly constitution, but usually the constitution sets the basis on how and where the laws work. The US congress these days creates massive 2000 pages long laws no can read or understand. The US has the highest incarceration rate of the western world and STILL one of the highest crime rates. The US police forces alone kills more people each year than the total number of people killed by guns in Germany by police and criminals combined. Before court, not all people are equal, the people with deep pockets are equaller. Or look how a drug company and medical doctors made lots of US citizens drug addicts. And it took many, many years to reduce the issue ... and the law system had no answer for this. Which CEO or CFO went to jail, for example? Which GP went to jail for addicting his patients, lost his license?

These days, even the balance of power is in jeopardy, and the US constitution again has no answer to this.

To me, I'd say the situation in the US justifies a rewrite of the constitution to something modern, and than a general election on this new constitution. Get rid of the old rubbish, it showed that it has many, very many, grave problems.

But again, I'm from europe and am therefore not so deep into your things ...

On the other side: most classic composers are from times when there was no Germany. E.g. J. S. Bach is from Sachsen-Eisenach :-)

No, don't do that. Because the pressure of the atmosphere isn't constant. It varies with weather and how high you are.

Instead use Pascal (Pa) or Hectopascal (hPA). I really pays back to use SI units for physical things. Suddenly you have formulas without weird constants, like 1 Pa = 1 N/m^2

It's a sad thing that new articles still propose units that are (since many, many years) outdated: the metric system is from 1793, the SI is from 1960.

BACK then people didn't knew better and used the varying atmosphere as base. But today ?!?!?

Also your claim "they DON'T WANT to have to define" is unproofable. Neither you nor me have any insight into what "they" want or don't want.

I think, for these two though errors your train-of-thought is already invalid.

Further, I'd even argue that precision in such a definition isn't necessary. Especially that the assumed non-existence of a definition would lead to inaction.

But ... if that would imply that we cannot do any action because we don't have a perfect definition, then I again would disagree. In "real life" we e.g. have laws that defines various crimes, e.g. "theft", "murder", "terrorist act" and what not. None of these definitions is perfect. Often they match, but every so often it's not really clear if they apply. In such cases a judge or a jury has to decide.

And that is possible today with things that people perceive as "slop". Someone could just decide. Based on a (imprecise) definition, based on tradition? Like in the judicial system.

There are also many cases where people don't use definitions and still exactly know what's going on. Look e.g. at 5 year old kids. They start to have an idea of property -- and are already very good to know then "this is mine" or "you thieved it" applies and when not. I am however quite sure they can't recite a definition of property or thievedom.

Except that here is no censorship to be seen.

A censor was a state/government official that approved material before it was allowed to be published. It started to become a thing after the printing press revolutionized publishing. You had it in monarchies but also republics (e.g. during Napoleons oppressive regime over europe). And even in recent time, e.g. in socialist 1) countries they had embedded "party secretairs" that checked stuff.

So, censorship as a) from the government and b) checked before publishing to the general public.

In capitalism or --- what we actually usually have --- a social market economy a company is free to get into contracts or not. So if some company say "I don't want to do a contract with people creating XYZ apps" ... than that's not censorship. It's not from the government and no check process before the publishing process happens. It is just freedom ... the freedom of the company in this case.

In some countries the freedom to engage into a contract or not is sometimes limited, e.g. if some service is very important (like electric power, water, banking). But a source code hosting site won't qualify for this.

Executing your own freedom isn't censorship. If e.g. Fox News decides to not broadcast 1:1 a statement of the CCP made ... then this isn't censorship.

But if a US republican regime says "You can't publish info on homosexuality in school books" and some government entity checks these books ... than that's censorship.

1) I mean real socialist ex-countries like GDR or USSR, not what some US people that never heard about "means of production" call socialist, like FRG

Also you can do one and the other ... at the same time. E.g. suicides of kids/teenagers (<= 19) in Germany in 2025: 216. That is, compared to the population in this age group, 1.38 per 100'000. In the USA that ratio is 9.4 in the age-group 15-19 and 2.3 in the age group 10-14.

And keep in mind, the total deaths by firearms in Germany in 2024 was "just" 168 (we have 1/4th of the US population, in the US police forces alone killed more people ... the total number of 44'000 firearms deaths in USA/2024 is even more staggering). Even if I multiply the 168 by 4 for the population difference ... then 672 vs. 44'000 is still a point of shame for the USA.

So in Germany, we do BOTH better regarding firearms AND regarding health services on kids. And if the USA truly would try MAGA they'd actually copy good results from other countries. So a real-MAGA-person must be against liberal firearms distribution AND for better social health work with teenagers.

BTW, the USA ideology of "the population needs arms to fight a corrupt state" is laughable. When you had your armed religious sects clash with the state, then the state always won. They still have more and better weapons and armor. On the other side, if you look how east-europe shed off their socialist regimes 40 years ago, than nowhere was an armed general population involved. So one can conclude that private firearms may as well be highly regulated and diminshed.

and

> my best guess

and

> and presumably other things?)

and

> maybe there’s a bunch of Python code running inside a transaction

Basically, this article has no substance. The author didn't bother to learn anything, didn't look things up. And is then wildly guessing, sometimes wrong.

This is BTW the reason why (as a Debian user) if I search something Linux related and a Ubuntu forum pops up, I don't even open that anymore. Sure, Ubuntu is similar to Debian, but the amount of wrong guessworks in these forums is hefty. I however usually open the Arch Wiki pages, despite Arch very != Debian. But the articles there are written by knowledgeable people.

Requires no technical understanding. At least not more than e.g. a WIFI router.

> devices randomly disconnect for hours even when they are 2ft from the coordinator,

You present this like a fact. But it is at most an anecdote. I present you a different anecdote: I have ~30 zigbee devices, in two different houses (first a house with concrete floors and cellar and level 1..3) and now one old woodwork structure house with 2 floors. Nowhere did I had even half an hour of disconnection.

> all around-horrible

... excellent experience even for my ex-spouse, which is/was non-techie.

However, that you present Zigbee here at all is weird. Zigbee doesn't have any way to transport a camera stream. It's mean for low-powered battery devices. My temperature sensors got a 1500mAh AAA chargeable batteries and they lasts now for over one year. Note that I have sensors from ~ 15 different brands. Mostly battery powered sensors and mains power switchable plugs.

I also enjoy that these Zigbee devices are by design completely disconnected from any IP traffic. This, and their (intentional) low data rate make them almost impossible to misuse. E.g. as denial-of-service originators or amplifiers.

It's like you present WIFI as long-range thingy but actually you'd want LORA for that. I'm not assuming that knowing for what kind of usage a tech was designed as "needing technical understanding". After all, no one would claim "you need technical understanding" to know that you better use a truck instead of a Porsche Cayman to transport 50 cubic meters of sand.