aiilns

As a Greek, a) lots of people lost their jobs during the crisis, could barely make ends meet or even committed suicide; those people certainly didn't fill the taverns. B) It is true that Greeks won't cut on food/going out as readily as others.

People in Greece certainly don't prioritize happiness instead of making money. There was a clear shift where Greeks became more and more unhappy after the (still ongoing) crisis. No1 problem is financial insecurity; as a resident (MD) I work 70-80hrs/week, for less than 7€/hour. Prices are comparable with rich EU countries.

Again you are extremely wrong on this. However it is clear that you hold such misanthropic views that I won't be able to make you even slightly consider a perspective based on the value of equality and human dignity.

If the treatment is expensive, then only net-productive individuals would be able to afford it, meaning we would gain the benefit of contributors contributing for longer, without net-recipients receiving for longer.

Because rich people are "net-productive" and poor people are "net-recipients"?

This is wrong on so many levels. And even today rich people live on average longer. Can't see the benefit myself.

I don't think you're right. I won't pretend to be an expert on any of this, but as a speaker of modern Greek I can confidently say that λαβύρινθος (labyrinth) is the only word in Greek to describe both your definition of a labyrinth and a maze.

For example, this Wikipedia article[1] on labyrinth in Greek, which has the picture [2] of a maze and calls it a labyrinth.

[1] https://el.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/%CE%9B%CE%B1%CE%B2%CF%8D%CF%...

[2] https://commons.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:NAMA_Tablette_1287...

We are the world champions of strikes and yet, somehow, doctors rarely go on strike. I do not know why.

When talking about public healthcare, strikes mean little. State won't care unless the strike is massive enough to attract media attention. Hospitals can't close down, a "safe" minimum of workers must care for patients so not a big problem for the state generally.

Autark comes from ancient greek αυτάρκης (same in modern greek) which is made up from two words αυτός (he) & αρκώ (v) which means suffice, so self-sufficient.

I wasn't aware that this word existed in English but I love coming across words like these that I am not aware of, though immediately understand.

Oh yes, and when support ends it's practically impossible to use a phone.

I've never understood people talking about "support", still rocking a 7 year old phone (have changed the battery) with fairly recent lineageos. Only really use floss apps though and don't browse weird sites.

I use a computer for serious stuff.

If you really cared about waste you could a) not buy a phone with limited support if for some mystical reason you care for that or b) find ways to use the phone without support.

Greeks.

Let me get this straight. You're asking what's stopping people from walking everywhere?

And instead of thinking for like 5 seconds and realizing someone may work 15km away from home you write a senseless comment about people driving to the grocery store and concluding that what's stopping people from walking everywhere is that they're lazy.

OK.

Not so in Greece. Salaries are way lower than 3,5-4k per month. Doctors, for example, in public hospitals get around 2k per month and the consultants maybe around 2,5-3k.

President Donald Trump repeated a highly misleading claim on Friday that Germany will soon depend on Russia for 50 percent to 70 percent of its energy needs.

Then the article spends significant time pointing out that Russian natural gas plays only a small part in Germany's total demands in energy, citing numbers like 20% & 13% and thus Trump's claim is am exaggeration.

And then goes on to say:

To be sure, Russia also accounted for about 40 percent of Germany's crude oil imports and 30 percent of its foreign coal supplies in 2016, according to IEA. But that hardly makes it an outlier in Europe.

How is that glossed over? Is it just me or - I hate to say it - Trump actually had a point?

...enter Greece.

It's because Pokémon Go was a product designed for manipulating people. One of the first attempts at mass behavioral modification.

Most Google products make sense when you think in data extraction terms & behavioral modification. Its products must either gather data from the users, use that data for better manipulating (personalized ads, "ads" for bars in the case of Go etc) or facilitate those two functions.

That's Google's business, not game development. And from that point of view, Pokémon Go was a huge success.

Turkey is in NATO, not in the EU. I believe elections are to happen next year, although democracy in Turkey is probably not going to get better for it.

Are doctors not already telling people to eat healthy & exercise?

12 hours work/day

ads for unhealthy food

lots of cheap tasty unhealthy food products in supermarkets

Have we really done the best we can as societies that the only thing left is to find a drug?

Within a system that promotes and often demands unhealthy lifestyles, we are doomed to scramble to find ways to battle emerging disease to enable our sick lifestyles.

Could be, it carries the same meaning in modern Greek.

Facebook, twitter, etc left-leaning in the US sense where left is right and right is near the edge of the right spectrum I get.

But people-empowering? These large platforms are very much anti-democratic and anti-empowering people. Even more, subverting peoples wills about what they buy by managing what they see and algorithmically trying to guide what they should think is very much anti people.

Any people empowering is merely a side effect and not at all the purpose

One roadblock for GNOME on mobile is a proper maps/navigation app. On android there exist a couple using openstreetmaps (like organic maps) but no offline maps & navigation programme for Linux.

Anyway I hope things will improve in the next year and even more hopefully I'll be able to help out.

I can’t see there being a compelling legal argument to disallow photos

that hasn’t been codified federally

The world is moving faster than law, I'd even go as far as to say that it almost always has been. What gets put into law has to have a common sentiment behind it first.

And not everything that's law means that's how things should be. Even in the US I think some states have the death penalty, others don't. The law does not show some absolute truth.

Your thinking is happening on a plane of law and legal enforcement: "the school can't enforce these rules, they can't stop me from taking photos, it's all legal".

Were it legal to kick a kid and the school had a rule prohibiting it, would you say the same? My thinking isn't about the law at all. It's about what I view as problematic and how I believe things should be; the sentiment that precedes law. I don't have to wait for the law to say that kicking kids shouldn't be happening.

Thinking of myself as a parent I'd be quite angry if photos of my children ended up on Instagram (private profiles or not) or any company's servers.

So in your place, knowing how brazen everyone is with privacy I'd actually be ok with this measure. It's not like you can't take photos/videos of your children and their friends (with their parents' consent) outside of school & during your time together.

Some 200 years ago photography hadn't even be invented, and only the last ~50 years has it been mainstream. Not every moment has to be recorded, relax, have fun and take a few photos so you can reminisce when older.

And it's not just the expectation of impermanence. Those photos are forever and for everyone as you say. Reachable by anyone, anytime for whatever reason.

I do understand where you're coming from, but I was growing up in the 2000s and the (primary & later secondary) school took photos that were shared first on official blogs/sites and then later posted on facebook/twitter without asking for permission.

It's not the photos that are the problem, it's that people don't really understand or respect others' privacy in the internet age.

February before covid, I was at a college in Manchester and was pleasantly surprised when they asked us to complete consent forms on where the photos that were to be taken were going to be uploaded. I was very happy to check the "I don't consent to photos of me shared on social media", consequently they took some photos with me & some without me. No pressure to be part of the group & not be left out.

I'm not entirely sure that that is the case and Germany was the primary reason for NATO forming. It surely was meant to hinder the spread of communism/Soviets.

And yes, a defense alliance can be flexible and change its objectives with the times, that's not counter to the point I was making. I'm not sure how to better express myself, I really think it is obvious that a defense alliance must be defending its members from _external_ threats.

If there is no possible threat (real or perceived, present or future) then no alliance is formed. That is the whole purpose, _the definition_ of a defense alliance.

I don't know how to express this notion with more clarity.

Obviously you are unaware of basic history of how NATO was created to halt the communist/Soviet "threat". Please, look up "History of NATO" on Wikipedia.

So, for NATO there _was_ a _defined threat_ it sought to protect against. In general, all alliances are made against perceived present or future threats, if you are _actually_ aware of an alliance being made with no external threat in mind, please let me know.

I won't pretend to be an expert on the matter, but I do not agree with your view.

For one, I think you are seriously misrepresenting USA's position. It's the biggest military power in the West and possibly the world, a country with military bases and operations all around the world. That the USA does not concern itself with other countries' matters is, sorry to say, laughable.

I also don't agree with your position that this is about the Ukrainian people's right to self determination. I think it's much closer to civil war, with "pro-Russia" Ukrainians, especially in the Donbas region, against "pro-Ukraine" Ukrainians. In 2014 that the pro-Kremlin regime fell, I remember some 50 people were killed in a burning building in Odessa. And the pro-Russia separatists of Donetsk & Luhansk were persecuted by the (corrupt) governments of Yatsenyuk & Poroshenko. Leading among those fighting against the pro-Russia "terrorists" was the Azov battalion, with several ties with neo-Nazis. It received military aid from the US up until 2018. And Ukraine has been receiving significant military aid from the US since 2014.

So to me, what you define as "right to self determination" seems more like nationalism in Ukraine backed by the USA to squash pro-Russia movements and separatists.

Lastly, I don't think that recognizing that big players like the USA, China, Russia can, and do, exert their power and influence to meddle in other countries, means that the peoples of those countries are "regional pawns". But framing it in a way that excludes their influence means you miss the big picture.

So because the USA has advanced weapons and other bases close enough to reach Moscow, it doesn't make sense that Putin/Russia would be concerned by NATO expansion even closer to Moscow, right next to their borders?

Then from whom is the alliance defending themselves, if not from those not into the alliance?

For example, a defense alliance that included all nations, would defend against aliens.

I repeat, a defense alliance must be, by definition, protecting the members from external threats. I don't think it's a very difficult concept to grasp.

Yes, "annexed" by Russians from Nazi Germany. As in, becoming part of the Soviet Union since the Red Army had taken the city near the end of WWII after the Russians and British had bombed ~90% of the city.

Russia/Russian government is allowed to perceive it any way he wants, but that might not dictate NATO policy.

Also, picking this from a comment of yours further below:

In the end, not sure it really matters how Russia sees the situation to be honest or what Russia thinks is relevant to them in.

Obviously Russia wanted Ukraine under their influence and NATO stood against that. It really _does_ matter how Russia sees things, now there's a war in Ukraine.

2) Probably because Russia sanctioning Ukraine would not be as debilitating for the country as the embargo against Cuba has been for Cuba.

3) You're talking about land that is part of the Russian Federation since 1945, is very close to Moscow and the mainland and is surrounded by NATO members because Poland and Lithuania joined NATO in 1999 & 2004. I'm not sure you're making any sense in this. Also, it's nowhere near the USA, Russia's main adversary.

At the end of the day, yes NATO and the USA may do as they wish, will removing Ukraine from Russia's influence lead to better lives for the Ukrainian people? Will this war that has already caused so many deaths and so much pain, be worth it? I don't know, and I don't think anyone can answer with much certainty.

So those who say they agree with Putin or agree that NATO forced his hand, are signing up to the same view of the status of Ukraine and therefore the Ukrainian people.

I don't have to agree with Putin to say that I can understand Russia's issues with Ukraine. Saying that Putin's/Russia's attitude makes sense, does not mean I agree with it. It's in Russia's interests that Ukraine should be under Russia's influence, and in USA's interests that Ukraine be away from this influence and under their own, NATO serving as a tool for this.

Now would the Ukrainian people's lives be better if under the EU's/NATO's influence, instead of Russia's? Maybe. Right now though, there's a war. Would a pro-Russia regime in Ukraine (& not trying to join NATO) have resulted in no war? Is the war worth it? Time will tell.