Youtube comments of Jasper Mooren (@jaspermooren5883).
-
9500
-
511
-
444
-
295
-
171
-
167
-
109
-
108
-
96
-
@tobene it's why I said commercial, not industrial. I get for many reasons why you don't want to put a steel mill in the middle of town (land is way too valuable for that kind of company to even want to be inside a city anyway), but more about bars, restaurants, supermarkets, shops, that kind of stuff. This stuff is not really polluting that much (in fact there's a good argument to be made that pollution goes down when shops are close to where people actually live). In the Netherlands there are several pretty big chemical industrial sites, and for obvious reasons they are relatively far away from residential areas. Offices indeed are often pretty close to city centers. I happen to work in one of those they built after the Bijlmer got reimagined. It's like a 3 minute walk from the train station, which is a pretty big boon for any company. Obviously cities used to pollute more in general in the past (just cars alone have become massively better than they were in the 50s and 60s), but the typical commercial activity you see in a 20th or 21st century city are not really that polluting. The east west side stuff was more the 18th and 19th centuries, when if you didn't have your factory close to a city, you wouldn't be able to attract employees, since most people, particularly poor people, weren't able to travel very far. This stratification stuff was more a mid century movement, which was closely related to the prevalence of the car amongst the middle class, well after the polluting industries left the cities.
93
-
83
-
77
-
75
-
72
-
For helium this partly works, but you still have the significant problem that you would need to have these helium facilities at places to land, which is in direct opposition to the whole benefit of airships that you don't need extensive infrastructure at the place you are landing. It's simply way easier to just balast the ship. For hydrogen, building fuel cells that can turn these very high amounts of hydrogen into electricity in a feasable amount of time, is basically equivalent to building a powerplant on board. And that obviously defeats the purpose of the airship as well, in addition to somehow needing to store that energy or connect it to the powergrid, which again uses a lot of infrastructure (you can't just connect these amounts of energy to the grid directly, you'd need a powerstation to do that or the grid will overload and basically fry your computer at home if you happen to live close to offloading). Hydrogen is also quite inefficient to make electrically, so you'd also waste a ton of energy turning electricity into hydrogen and back again all the time. At that point you might as well just use a plane. And that's not even talking about the safety concern mentioned in the video with constantly on and offloading hydrogen in an airship.
So yeah if you think about it shortly it might make sense, but if you think about it a bit longer, you'd soon realise that just adding balast is a far easier way to deal with the problem.
61
-
53
-
51
-
50
-
50
-
45
-
43
-
39
-
37
-
37
-
36
-
35
-
34
-
32
-
31
-
29
-
28
-
27
-
27
-
26
-
25
-
24
-
@Fatman305 I don't know, that's sounds rather dystopian tbh. There'll be a lot of political backlash for anything like that. And you can't say anything about the sudden movements. There's still physics. If I walk next to a road and then start crossing the road, a car with 150km/h won't be able to stop. You can activate the brakes in nano seconds, that doesn't matter that much, you'd still have to slow down at a reasonable deceleration. Even if braking technology would allow you to somehow stop for something like that (which is already extremely unlikely) from inside the car it would be the equivalent of ramming a wall at 150km/h, so as long as there are humans inside the vehicle, which is kinda the point, you can't do that. This flow state system just doesn't work inside cities. Any autonomous vehicle that is viable, needs to be able to operate in real world conditions as we see today, since it is still an object with a human inside and therefore there's a limit to the amount of forces you can apply on the vehicle. And at low speeds you might as well stick to the system we have today, it wouldn't really matter too much, which means you wouldn't have to take such draconian measures as requiring to chip everyone.
23
-
23
-
22
-
@Fatman305 I still don't see how the argument makes sense. First of all, having cars go this fast is a disaster for both the environment and noise pollution. There's a reason highways have to be several 100 meters away from residential buildings (at least here in the Netherlands), and it's because fast moving cars are extremely loud. And the loudness is due to the tires going across the asphalt. At high speeds electric cars are just as loud as ICE cars (actually louder, since they are heavier than an ICE car of the same class). High speeds cause significantly increased damage to roads as well, which means they need to be maintained a lot more, which is extremely expensive.
And all that just to be a few minutes earlier at your destination. Yeah, that's a hard no from me. Having to buy a tag just to be able to go outside is insane, particularly considering the benefits are negligent. Increasing maximum speeds at a highway when all cars are autonomous because it is safe anyway I can see happening (although environmental and noise pollution are still concerns, in the Netherlands the maximum speed on highways was actually reduced for this reason, not safety but air quality). But I don't want cars to pass my house at 100km/h, not even when I'm inside of the house, let alone in a garden or something and definitely not when I'm actually on the sidewalk.
21
-
21
-
20
-
19
-
18
-
18
-
17
-
17
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
13
-
13
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
Iedereen, ongeacht de situatie, zou een tweede kans in het leven moeten hebben. Dat is ook een van de belangrijkste argumenten waarom de doodstraf in Nederland grondwettelijk verboden is (art. 114 van de Grondwet). Levenslang is in mijn ogen tenminste veel inhumaner dan de doodstraf. Dat is decennia (in de meeste gevallen) uitzichtloos lijden, met geen enkele hoop om nog iets te kunnen kunnen betekenen op wat voor een manier dan ook. Dat valt wat mij betreft onder psychologisch martelen, wat onder geen enkele situatie ethisch verantwoord is. Oog om oog tand om tand heeft nooit ergens op geslaan, iemand anders leven slecht maken, maakt de jouwe niet beter. Er is al meerdere keren aangetoond dat bij zware misdaad de straf geen enkele rol speelt, althans niet de hoogte daarvan. Misschien als je 10 uur taakstraf krijgt voor moord dat dat het aantal moorden significant toeneemt, maar dat is nergens het geval. Of dat je nou 10 jaar krijgt of levenslang heeft geen impact op het aantal moorden dat gepleegd wordt. Dus het enige argument voor levenslang is het voorkomen van recidieven (wat mij betreft het enige argument voor überhaupt een gevangenis straf, naast het afschrikwekkende effect tot op zekere hoogte). Zolang het aannemelijk is dat iemand recidiverend is, moet je iemand natuurlijk niet zo maar vrij laten, maar je kan best wel iemand al relatief snel verlof geven bijvoorbeeld (je bent 'vrij' maar staat onder streng toezicht, en je kan weer vast gezet worden zonder uitspraak van de rechter). Op deze manier kan je iemand iig weer laten proberen terug te keren in de samenleving, wat het enige ethische is wat je kan doen denk ik. Na een bepaalde periode (jaren) verlof met goed gedrag, kan je dan iemand vervolgens vrij laten. Gevangenis straffen blijken uit eigenlijk alle onderzoeken zijn een dramatische maatregel, die recidieven alleen maar vergroten en mensen uit de samenleving trekken. Betrek mensen zo snel mogelijk weer bij de wereld, en laat ze zien dat er veel betere manieren van leven zijn. Een uitspraak van de rechter zou een wake up call moeten zijn, en een mogelijkheid voor dit soort mensen om te ontsnappen uit het criminele circuit. Echt levenslang (dus achter het tralies tot je dood), is naar mijn idee onacceptabel. Zeker door een rechter opgelegd, als de kans op recidieven echt zo hoog is, zelfs na decennia, spreek je volgens mij van iemand die in de TBS thuishoort, niet in een reguliere gevangenis. Maar daar gaat iig een psychiater over of je eruit mag en is het medisch onderbouwd. Dat vind ik dan toch weer anders, in extreme gevallen moet je mensen tegen zichzelf (en dus ook tegen anderen) in bescherming kunnen nemen.
11
-
11
-
11
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
@utube1255 "social housing or concentration camps for refugees", it definitely wasn't that. Like the video said, the whole point was to make it a middle class neighborhood. It was a failure because it was planned to be this futuristic middle class neighborhood and became one of the worst neighbourhoods in the Netherlands, but true ghettos haven't really existed in the Netherlands since the mid 1800s (outside of Jewish neighbourhoods during the Nazi occupation, but you can't really blame the Dutch for that). The problem was that it stayed half empty which made it both expensive and undesirable. When only half the people pay rent, because the other half is empty, you have to basically pay double to keep the elevators and stuff running. It just wasn't a desirable place to live. And contrary to modern day where 1000s of apartments being empty in Amsterdam is unimaginable, the housing shortage was really low in the late 60s and early 70s. This project is near the end of the building boon after the massive housing shortage because of WW2 bombings. As is always the case in long term projects, people look way too much in the present and not when it is actually finished, so too many houses got built, and, an unpopular neighborhood like the Bijlmer, then remains relatively empty. So a neighbourhood that just doesn't adhere to the standards in the Netherlands in a period where there actually were more or less enough houses makes the neighbourhood relatively bad, and is a downward spiral. I don't know a lot about Russia in the 60s and 70s when it comes to housing, but I wouldn't be surprised if it was very different over there. It was a failed project because it was a utopian project that became very subpar to Dutch standards. However I still would much rather live in a neighborhood like the Bijlmer in the 70s, than let's say a ghetto in any large American city, they are not even remotely close.
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
@utube1255 They said storage not stores. That's something entirely different. That's quite a normal way of designing an apartment building in the Netherlands is to have storage space for every apartment on the ground floor, so you can store big stuff (like bikes) safely locked up without having it to take it up several floors every time. It even has its own word that I've never heard used in any other context of storage space: 'de berging'. But storage of course doesn't add commercial activity to an area. I'm quite interested to see what they did differently in Moskow, because at least here in the Netherlands I've always seen it go wrong. Of course not in every street, but at least nearby there should be something, and if it is close enough in basically all directions you will see people on the streets at almost every hour of the day. Understandably not every apartment block has their own shopping center, that would be completely unsustainable. But it should never be further than 5-10 min by bike to go to at least some commercial activity, and that wasn't the case in the Bijlmer, that's what they mentioned in the video, that there were no shops. Nowadays there's a reasonably big shopping center right in the middle of the Bijlmer that is much newer than the original neighbourhood from the 60s, and it works very well, the area is super lively since it's there.
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
@grandsome1 freight rail is actually a pretty good network in the US. The problem is most of it is single track, which makes passenger rail horribly inefficient to run. And since most railways in the US are privately owned, they only use it for the much more profitable freight rail rather than passenger rail. And doubling all the tracks is an expense these companies just aren't willing to make. US rail isn't, and really has never been, designed around passenger rail since the advent of the car. That's also why passenger rail is so much better on the east coast than anywhere else. The east coast was already pretty densely populated in the 19th century, when the rest of the country was practically empty. So yeah, you can go every 10 min from NYC to Boston by train, but if you want to go from Los Angeles to Dallas, you'd have to take a bus, there literally isn't a train that can bring you there, and the trip takes more than 30 hours.
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
@hollandsemum1 I have no idea what you are replying to. I just gave my view on the situation. I don't know why you are talking about customer service (is that your only experience with the Netherlands or something, that you bought something from here once that wasn't up to your standards?), it has absolutely nothing to do with it. Even if it somehow would matter, there is absolutely no evidence other than anecdotes you can find in basically every country in the world to suggest that somehow the Netherlands is significantly worse on this issue. I was specifically not talking about pre-industrial infrastructure, I was talking about a building project from the 1960s, well after the industrial revolution, like almost everything in the Netherlands btw. In 1900, the Netherlands had over 3,5x less people than it has now, so even if every building from 1900 would still be standing (and I can assure you it does not, whole cities have been bombed since then), the vast majority of people wouldn't be living in them. There's no reason to even mention the cultural difference between the Americas and the Netherlands, since I was talking about a single development project in Amsterdam, namely the one discussed in the video, the Bijlmer. It's a development project I happen to know relatively well, since I work there. I've walked around the neighbourhood quite a bit. I just gave my 2 cents about why in the context it was built in (the Netherlands in the 1960s) it was considered a relative failure, because it lacked something that basically everywhere else in the Netherlands has, that has now been added and has almost immediately greatly improved the neighbourhood, to an extent that large corporations feel comfortable building their headquarters in. And you start talking about 'golden age pride' and customer service. I really don't understand why.
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
Additionally, most of BRICS are actually more and more against Russia and the only reason they are still in it is because it is not really anything more than a yearly meeting anyway. As long as Russia is part of BRICS, the block is not going to become a significant power at all, since all an alliance with Russia achieves, is political isolation with the rest of the world. I wouldn't be surprised if Russia gets kicked out of BRICS in the not too distant future. Russia has been completely politically isolated from the world and even China is very hesitant to work with Russia nowadays and super angry about this stupid invasion. They were obvious natural allies and Russia basically ruined it and turned itself from an equal power to a Chinese puppet in one move. Putin completely isolated Russia geopolitically and this invasion might have been the biggest geopolitical mistake in the last 78 years, other than maybe the USSR in the 80s and early 90s with the fall of the Soviet Union and the resulting sell out to oligarchs, which turned the USSR from one of the world powers into a minor nation that is easily ignored.
The only geopolitical power Russia has left is nukes and even that has become blatantly clear that it doesn't even matter that much for anything but national defense, since no one is obviously willing to use them, since it is utterly ridiculous to do so, the world would literally be destroyed, which is in no ones interest. Even people as clearly insane as Putin aren't willing to use them, which makes them largely irrelevant on the world stage.
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
@Enyavar1 That's not really true though. Wood is still an afforable easily accessible resource. It's just far less efficient than steel is for making ships (and a lot of other things as well, wood is actually not that great from a pure material science perspective). It's more expensive and less effective (wooden ships have a lot more drag than steel ships, so it either costs a lot more fuel to get somewhere or you're going a lot slower). The prevalance of steel over wood really only happened after the invention of the bessemer process (which made steel significantly cheaper). Before that ships where made of wood, and forests where actually less in number and size at that time compared to the contemporary world. Brittania ruled the waves after all, despite the UK being famously laking in wooded land (forests in the UK are quite rare, it has been barren for literal millenia after most has been chopped down before even the Romans arrived in Britain). You don't actually need a lot of forest to make a ship. While I won't deny that pollution hasn't been a thing, forests are actually not really less in number than they were during Roman times (at least in Europe, we can't really say the same thing for South America for example), wood for building doesn't actually require that much land. Most forests were destroyed when humans started the practise of farming, because burning forests made for excelent farmland (and still is, most of the amazon that we are losing is not chopped for the wood, but burned for the farmland to grow crops). So a very large portion of human destruction of forested areas happened well before the roman times, and in the last century there actually have been fairly sizable efforts to reforest Europe and the amount of forested land has vastly increased, not decreased over the last century.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
Everyone keeps saying that but VVD and PvdA have been in tons of coalitions together in the past. 'Purple' governments have been a thing in Dutch politics for decades. A government with GL/PvdA VVD NSC and D66 is very much an option. It is just not the preferred one, so particularly for the VVD they'd much rather have a right wing government. And GLPvdA obviously would prefer a government without the VVD, but that simply isn't an option. New elections will be bad for all talking parties. Since it didn't work because of the PVV, they'll be excluded by practically everyone and lose all the votes they have and go back to being a sizable but marginalized party. VVD caused the whole debacle and will probably collapse even more, maybe only NSC will come out relatively cleanly since they didn't want any of this anyway. And GL/PvdA is never going to be as big as they are now if the threat from Geert Wilders is gone. So both GL/PvdA and VVD have all the reasons to form a government. But all that is based on the current situation, and most of the stuff that determines the election outcome happens during the elections anyway, so really nobody knows. This is just my two cents on the topic. Based on what we know now, it is incredibly unlikely that VVD or GLPvdA will be better off after new elections. And for D66 and NSC this would be basically the perfect government, having a party to the left and to the right of you, means that on most topics you get what you want. That's why people call the VVD right wing during elections and centre during government, since they have always been the most right wing party in a coalition and therefore always have to move in the same direction. A coalition with the PVV would allow them to actually pass stringent immigration laws, something they wanted but haven't been able to do in all the governments they have been in. Or at least that's what they have been saying. Anyone with a brain knows that its terrible for the economy, anti-liberal and basically against everything that big companies want, it is a very weird position to hold for a neo-liberal globalist capitalist party such as the VVD.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@Watcher3223 Yes, problem is still that that is quite heavy to build on the ship, which you have to transport everywhere. So your He compression tank, which has to be pretty big, since you're not just blowing up a few helium balloons, is gonna be pretty heavy if you want a decent pressure to build up. Every kg of compression tank is one that you can't use for cargo. It also costs a ton of electricity to compress that He every trip, and the whole point of an airship is to be far more energy efficient than a plane (along the other things mentioned, but it's still pretty imporant to not cost a ton of electricity every trip). And that still doesn't solve helium leaking. He is super small, so it needs to be significantly better closed off than just normal airtight to actually stop He from leaking into the atmosphere, so you probably still need to regularly refill the airship. I think it's still way cheaper to just balast the ship by transporting something like a load of water (unless you're transporting to a desert, water is basically free and wildly available anyway in amounts that matter for this usecase, and if it isn't you can always use some other common practically free material, like sand or rocks). And that's only if you assume the ship regularly empties without being refilled. But honestly every km travelled without cargo is pretty bad economically anyway. Trucks, ships and trains always try to fill up with new stuff at their destination or at least close to it. Sometimes it's inevitable, but preferably you'd load up every time you unload. I just don't really see how the balast issue is actually an issue, it's quite easy to deal with. Just transport anything that has weight, that shouldn't be too hard to do in 99% of usecases. Even in cases like disaster relief, where you probably don't leave the disaster site with useful tradegoods, you can probably still bring back rocks or sea water or something other extremely common. Or a bunch of people even, if the disaster calls for evacuation (although that's probably not enough, people are very light compared to the space they require, assuming humane conditions).
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@houseofancients Ja je kan vrij veel Uranium van te voren al kopen. De kosten is niet de uranium, en ook de ruimte is geen probleem. En zolang je het niet verrijkt is het ook niet radioactief en het kost niet super veel ruimte om op te slaan (het uranium ligt al miljarden jaren in de grond, zolang je niet actief een kernreactie begint gebeurt er eigenlijk niks). Dus je kan makkelijk voor 10 jaar vooruit al uranium kopen en vanuit heel veel verschillende landen, dat is wel heel wat anders dan bij gas, waar we eigenlijk afhankelijk waren van 1 grote leverancier (Rusland) en na minder dan 1 jaar hadden we al een probleem. Het gaat er niet om dat we niet afhankelijk zijn van het buitenland (dat zijn we tenslotte ook met zon en wind, en eigenlijk zo'n beetje alles wat we hebben in Nederland), maar dat we die afhankelijkheid diversifiseren. De uranium is niet echt een probleem. Het probleem is de extreme veiligheidseisen van een kernreactor (die ook wel weer begrijpelijk zijn) die de bouw heel duur maken. Zodra die helemaal staat is een kernreactor extreem goedkoop.
Maar je kan de vergelijking in prijs met zon en wind niet echt maken. Dat kan alleen als je vervolgens de opslagkosten van die energie meeneemt, en dan komt het ineens heel erg in de buurt. Tot nu toe is de productie van groene stroom vrijwel altijd onder het verbruik gebleven en gebruiken we dus gewoon minder kolen en gas voor elk zonnepaneel dat er neer gelegd wordt, maar dat kantelpunt hebben ongeveer nu bereikt waarbij overproductie op momenten van hoge opbrengst een probleem wordt. Dus tegen die tijd dat deze kerncentrales af zijn, is dat een enorm probleem om op te lossen. En als je de stroom niet opslaat maar gewoon weggooit, dan worden zonnepanelen dus ook vele malen duurder per netto kWh. Of je slaat het wel op (wat nodig is voor momenten dat er weinig productie is, denk aan de windstille nachten), wat gigantisch duur is en op dit moment zelfs technisch onhaalbaar. De constante output van een kernreactor betekent dat iedere W die een reactor output er één is die je niet mee hoeft te nemen in de energieopslag van Nederland. Kernreactoren concurreren niet met de kosten van zon en wind, ze concurreren met de kosten van energieopslag. En dan is kernenergie ineens een hele aantrekkelijke optie.
3
-
3
-
3
-
@Nerdiness1985 from about 50-70 meters it's actually not that hard to dodge an arrow. By moving in a predictable path you are making it way easier to get hit. So running in an unpredictable pattern is hugely helpful against a weapon that needs to anticipate where the target is going to be. It's completely different from super sonic ammunition that on relatively short ranges like these are essentially laser points (relatively speaking, there's some drop and time down range, but were talking centimetres and milliseconds compared to meters and tenths of seconds with a bow). A medieval longbow arrow only goes about 100m/s (and that's a fairly high estimate. It heavily depends on the arrow and the bow). So it actually takes at least half a second to go 50m down range. So as soon as you are about 30-40m away, you'd definitely want to move erratically, it makes it practically impossible to hit, since you actually need to lead the shot quite a bit. Like throwing a ball at someone that's running, you need to throw where they are going to be, not where they are. With guns it's a very different story, since the bullets go over 10x as fast, so you don't need to lead even remotely as much, and dodging a bullet is practically impossible. Either you are way too close to dodge it, or you can't see the bullet's trajectory (when talking about kilometre long shots).
Although the scene is about a kid and an absolute psychopath. So it's not unrealistic that the kid is just running in a straight line when that level of terror is happening, but it's not the smart thing to do.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
I don't see how this story is a big deal. There's a law that says that criminals can't get citizenship, if those laws are recognised by the government. That's seems pretty sensible to me tbh. They just put the ceremony on hold, since they wanted to make sure the felonies were indeed unrecognised by Canada. That takes days (I'm surprised it didn't take months honestly), because they actually have to check the charges put against you, which is bureaucracy that takes a while, because that's just how governments work. Particularly when a government official has to interpret Russian legal cases, which I assume are in Russian. I doubt your average Canadian government official has the skills to read and understand Russian legal cases. Seems quite sensible to me that it takes a while. Doesn't mean that she shouldn't be accepted (and she did after all), it just means that it becomes a more difficult case to analyse, and more difficult just takes longer. The Canadian government was basically like ok, makes sense, but let's just check if what you are saying is actually true, and you're not charged for murdering someone or something. There's a big difference between putting the process on hold for further investigation and denying an application, they never did the latter if I understand the video correctly.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Ja dan krijg je wel bizarre coalities waar bij je weet dat we langer demissionaire dan missionaire kabinetten krijgen. Daarbij is er helemaal geen relatie tussen de regering en het parlement in de formatie volgens de grondwet, dus dat vereist echt een enorme grondwet wijziging. Er wordt gewoon een regering gevormd die de kamer goed moet keuren. Sterker nog grondwettelijk gezien hoeft er niet eens een nieuwe regering te komen na verkiezingen, en er hoeven helemaal geen nieuwe verkiezingen te komen als het kabinet valt. Dat is allebei gewoon traditie, maar dat staat nergens in de wet. De kamer heeft het recht om ministers naar huis te sturen, dat wel. Dus een nieuwe kamer kan gewoon zeggen we hebben geen zin meer in dit kabinet en traditie is dat het kabinet de kamer al voor is en zelf demissionair wordt (waar overigens ook geen wettelijke basis voor is, demissionair is gewoon een traditie die aangeeft dat je een heel zwak democratisch mandaat hebt) en er een nieuwe regering gevormd wordt, als het kabinet niet al demissionair was voor de verkiezingen zoals je nu zag.
Dus dit soort dingen verplichten vraagt een om een codificering in de wet van het hele formatie proces wat helemaal niet bestaat. Uiteindelijk zijn er minister waar de kamer (en heel formeel de koning, maar die tekent gewoon bij het kruisje) mee akkoord gaat.
Sterker nog partijen bestaan niet eens in de wet, er zijn alleen maar 'lijstverbindingen', wat inhoud dat als je meer dan een zetel aan stemmen hebt dat dan de mensen op die lijstverbinding jou stemmen krijgen. Maar uiteindelijk zitten er juridisch gezien gewoon 150 mensen in de kamer, geen partijen.
Daarbij is een meerderheid een meerderheid. Waarom zouden 3 grote partijen meer mandaat hebben dan 4 iets kleinere partijen als die partijen allebei een meerderheid hebben? Uiteindelijk moeten alle wetsvoorstellen door een meerderheid van de kamer goedgekeurd worden en kan een meerderheid van de kamer een minister afzetten. Dus zolang het kabinetsbeleid door een meerderheid van de kamer gesteund wordt is het gewoon democratisch.
Als partijen opsplitsen hebben ze niet ineens minder democratisch mandaat. Ondanks dat het ineens 2 veel kleinere partijen geworden zijn. In de praktijk zie je natuurlijk dat je onderhandelingspositie beter is als je 1 partij bent en zie je toch dat een kabinet uit zo min mogelijk partijen bestaat over het algemeen, maar het is niet minder democratisch als meerdere kleinere partijen het voor het zeggen krijgen.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
Best way to defend against being killed: dont piss of people so bad they try to kill you. Unless you are extremely unlucky that you become the victim of a serial killer (and serial killers are super rare, luckily) you pissed of someone extremely badly if they are trying to kill you. Just be nice, by far the best self defence. Maybe someone tries to threaten you for money or something, well in that case you should run, and if you somehow can't because he/she is faster, well at least its not a concealed blade issue, so some techniques might actually work (although i agree its still bloody difficult). I like you videos, but I find it rather concerning that you wear armour because you are expecting people to commit intentional murder, which is extremely rare. It means you have either pissed of some really dangerous people really badly or you are aperrently on the safe side in an extreme way that is borderline phobic. For you I honestly hope it is the latter one. I do have to say I live in a very low crime rate nation, maybe things are different in some cities in the world, but still the likelyhood of entering a 'knife fight' or whatever you would call it, is extrely unlikely without provoking it. If you somehow get attacked by a attacked rapist or mugger, I would run away if I could and if I couldnt i would let them take my stuff, and probably even would let me get raped, if the only other choice is almost certain death. And the likelihood of gatting raped is also incredibly small, although that of course does not take away its horror. It is terribly and I firmly believe we should do everything in our power as a society to stop this from happening. But rearanging your daily life for something that is (expecially for a male) so incredibly rare seems crazy from my point of vieuw. I really can't follow your reason. Please understand that I do not desire to attack you personally, since don't know you. I just really don't understand why someone would go to such great lengths for something so unlikely.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Hoe denk je dat die gevangenissen in Amerika aan hun geld komen? Juist, belasting geld. Alsjeblieft niet het Amerikaanse systeem, dat staat wereldwijd bekend als het aller duurste en tegelijkertijd slechtst functionerende systeem in de hele westerse wereld. Het klopt dat het private bedrijven zijn, maar die worden betaald door de overheid voor elke gevangene die ze vasthouden. Dat is echt een slecht systeem. Die bedrijven hebben namelijk een incentive om recidieven te maximaliseren, ipv minimaliseren, wat het doel van een gevangenis zou moeten zijn. Niet heel toevallig heeft Amerika dan ook het hoogste aantal gevangenen per hoofd van de bevolking. Het gaat hier om een personeelstekort, dan is een systeem wat zorgt voor veel meer gevangen wel het laatste wat je wilt.
Het 'probleem' in Nederland, als je het al een probleem kan noemen, is dat wij een enorm goede economie hebben met vrijwel 0 werkloosheid. Dat betekent dat dit soort banen die weinig mensen willen doen de serieuze tekorten gaan vallen. Het zelfde zie je in de zorg en horeca bijvoorbeeld. Dus de enige echte oplossing is dat dit soort essentiële banen salarissen krijgen die gelijk getrokken worden met de industrie, maarja dat kost de belastingbetaler miljarden per jaar, dus dat gaat zolang de VVD in het kabinet zit nooit gebeuren. Er is simpelweg te veel werk en te weinig mensen in Nederland.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@danielwebb8402 problem is cost of living went up so much that most people (or at least a lot of not most) need 2 jobs to be able to live together. A lot of people wish they were able to afford to not have a job. And yes, people were much poorer in the past, but it has almost become impossible to live that way today. Without a smart phone I literally cannot do my job for example. Most people live in a much bigger house than historically, but just try to find a small one, it's nearly impossible and for those that do exist have so much exploded in price that they are barely cheaper anyway. For some people, yes it is a conscious choice to not have children while they could, which is their fundamental human right btw to make that decision. For a lot of people it is also the fact that they couldn't live a modern life (most of those people, at least in Europe, don't even own a car at all, let alone 2) if they got children, and that is a very different equation than in times of the atomic family where a single person working was the norm and more then enough to afford basic necessities like food and a place to live. I'm not saying those times were better, I think you would have a hard time making a case to say they did, but it was significantly easier to run a household on 1 paycheck than it is today, at least for those who make less than modal income, which, by definition, is 50% of the population. You can't just take 1 parameter and say that is the problem, when you are talking about something so complex as human history and culture. What I'm presenting here is also just 1 of the many reasons it's not that simple.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Vandaag aan het Romeinse Rijk gedacht? Check! Uiteindelijk is natuurlijk het idee dat je je een beetje normaal wilt gedragen, want uiteindelijk ben je gewoon een medewerker van de overheid die je altijd zo kan ontslaan en dus ook je diplomatieke onschendbaarheid kan afnemen. Je representeerd een land, dus als je zo maar overal door rood rijd en daarmee dus als vertegenwoordiger van een land laat zien dat het je allemaal helemaal niks scheelt, tja dan laat je jou land niet echt van z'n beste kant zien. Dat kan serieuse diplomatieke gevolgen hebben. Maarja dan moet het land er zich wel iets van aantrekken. Probleem is dat best veel landen het zich allemaal niks schelen omdat de relaties toch al behoorlijk slecht zijn, en Nederland wil natuurlijk ook niet zo maar iedereen die door rood rijd meteen persona non grata maken. Ik denk niet dat Putin het iets boeit als een Russische diplomaat in Nederland door rood rijdt bijvoorbeeld. Als dit vaak gebeurt in Nederland vanuit de Duitse Ambasadeur en Nederland is van deze persoon lapt alle Nederlandse regels aan hen laars, dan zal Duitsland zich daar veel meer van aantrekken en op z'n minst die diplomaat aanspreken en als het vaker gebeurt misschien zelfs terugtrekken, omdat Duitsland het wel relevant vind wat Nederland van ze vind en dus de beste kant aan Nederland wil laten zien. Als je ambasadeur in een land niet gerespecteerd wordt, heb je er niets aan. Het enige wat ze kunnen doen is praten ten slotte, dus het helpt je werk niet enorm als mensen je niet respecteren. Maarja veel landen zijn natuurlijk hardstikke corrupt en zeker een relatief klein land als Nederland interesseert ze niks, dus die sturen gewoon de oude politieke vriendjes hier heen. En je krijgt een hoop geld en je woont lekker relaxed in een goed georganiseerd land als Nederland, zeker als je toch tegen het einde van je carriere zit is dat een goede deal. Dus tja, die mensen interesseert het geen reet wat Nederland van ze vinden. Het idee van diplomatieke immuniteit is dus wel logisch, als je je misdraagt raak je je baan kwijt en kan je zelfs vervolgd worden in eigen land want dat land heeft jou erheen gestuurd juist om goede banden te hebben, dus het is de baan van die persoon te zorgen dat mensen je mogen en bereid zijn naar je te luisteren. Maarja als dat land dat dan vervlogens niet doet omdat ze alleen maar diplomaten hebben in een land, 'omdat dat nou een maal zo hoort' of puur als vriendjespolitiek, dan breekt het systeem een beetje.
Ik zou wel vinden dat als diplomaten zich misdragen, ook op een kleine manier, je dat gewoon door zou moeten sturen naar het ministerie van buitenlandse zaken van dat land. Als je nooit zegt dat iets niet ok is, dan kan je ook niet verwachten dat ze er iets tegen doen. Dus gewoon een bon sturen, als ze die niet betalen, tja dan kan je ze niet vervolgen, maar je kan wel dat land op de hoogte stellen. Als het de spui gaten uit loopt kan je altijd nog iemand het land uit zetten, maargoed ik snap ook wel dat buitenlandse zaken niet per see die rel altijd wilt.
Nou moet ik wel zeggen dat ik in mijn leven een paar keer ambassadeurs tegen ben gekomen, en het zijn wel stuk voor stuk bijzondere mensen die ook wel een beetje in hun eigen wereld leven, dus ik weet niet hoe goed dit werkt in de praktijk.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
What I don't understand is why politicians care about the demands of their funders. If I would run for president (I'm not American so I can't) I would get all the money and say all the things, and after I'm elected I would not give a shit about their demands, why would the president? It doesn't make much sense, these benefactors pumping money are completely at the mercy of the politicians, not the other way around. As soon as they are elected they can just not care about them and do their thing, right? Particular if the first thing you do is make these benefactors illegal to pump money in the campaign and make it state funded like it is in basically every other democracy. Accepting money from 3rd parties in the Netherlands (where I'm from) is considered corruption and is illegal, especially high amounts of money from a single person or company (like more than a few 100 euro's). So only if you actually want to benefit the establishment as a president, if that is actually your political vision, I see how this system can still exist. But that should be a small minority of the politicians, right? It seems, also in Chomsky's view, that the benefactors are as much a problem for the politicians as the voters are. If a politician would push this through, they would instantly become a very popular politician and probably have settled a good political career for the rest of their life (as much as that is possible in politics). And considering that the politicians aren't dependent on the establishment anymore, it doesn't matter that they hate you, you can be a successful politician anyway.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@MayaPosch there's actually a good reason to do this, and it's heavy industry. It's impossible to get the temperatures required to produce steel for example with electricity, since to do that you'd be melting the electric heating itself. Right now they run on methane gas, which is hot enough, but hydrogen would also work. So a clean energy solution is to produce hydrogen from clean electricity to then burn that hydrogen to create the extreme temperatures required. If the point is creating heat anyway, burning hydrogen is not actually that inefficient even. So it's also a good option for other industries that require loads of heat, particularly if these industries, which most do, run through the night when solar production is near 0.
Additionally, hydrogen is actually one of the best solutions currently available for clean energy storage on a large scale. Germany is already overproducing clean energy on good days (they are literally wasting energy on purpose because the grid would otherwise overload every summer), so the literally free energy could be used to create hydrogen to turn into electricity at night. Is it inefficient? Yes, but anything that's more than 0% efficiency is a win at this point. Batteries are just an absolute no go for anything of the size of the electrical demands of a nation and hydropower requires specific geography that is not available everywhere (which is a way better energy storage solution if the geography allows for it).
I firmly believe that hydrogen can actually be very important in the clean energy mix for this exact reason. Also hydrogen is actually fairly cheap to not run 24/7, yeah it increases the investment cost of the plant, but its operating cost are near 0 when not in use, so hydrogen production is actually very well suited to balance the load on an electrical grid. If we want to get through windless nights, we either need a globalised grid of extremely high voltage to transport electricity across the world (which would also have serious efficiency losses), or we need storage. And hydrogen is just one of the better storage solutions for energy available on the scale you need to store the demand of an entire nation for over 16 hours straight (sundown till sunrise in the middle of winter).
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@chrisrussell7012 I mean as a government you kind of have to be. The government is way too big and deals with way too many cases to just believe what people say. As a government you have to prove it. The only thing that makes this a sad story is the timing. Already being invited and only then having to process the legal case is indeed stressful.
I don't believe that without the social media backlash any decision would have been different. It just would have probably taken longer than a few days, governments are famously slow. If there are cases of people being denied citizenship based on this law in Canada or any western country for that matter, I'd love to hear it. But it seems unlikely, since basically all of the west has a political asylum clause where you cannot be denied citizenship based on laws that don't exist in the country in question. In fact in many countries it can be the reason to get approved in the first place (prosecution from an authoritarian government for political opinions is a just cause for asylum seeking in as far as I'm aware all of the west, at least most of it). It would be very odd to be denied citizenship based on holding a position that is the official position of literally every western nation. Namely that it is a war that is both morally wrong and unlawful in international law, and therefore completely unjust.
All I'm saying is that it makes sense that the government wants to check the facts. And government officials need to go through a lot of hoops, because they have a lot of power over people, and checking that power just takes time and a lot of procedures. I wouldn't be surprised if this formally had to go through a judge, simply because any interpretation of the law has to go through the justice system. Any random government official is simply not allowed to do that. Even in cases where every person with more than 2 braincells would be able to predict the ruling. I know of a Dutch case where a Saudi Arabian got convicted for being gay, and it also had go through court, simply because it is about the interpretation of the law. Obviously in the Netherlands (the first country in the world to legalise gay marriage) that is considered an unjust law and prosecution for it is a reason to get asylum in the first place. Still, it had to go through a judge, because, unlike Russia, in a country where the Rule of Law dictates, you want to do it the right way where powers are checked. That's why governments are so inefficient. The government has way too much power to be efficient.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Why is it not a great thing that small parties with small support bases can exert power? There are people who have these opinions so shouldn't their opinions be represented in a representative democracy? To me it only seems that ideas of minority groups actually being heard in parliament is great, it actually means that eventhough they are part of a fringe idea, it can be put on the political agenda at least and their points can come across. In the end it is still a small party, so it is not minority rule since they have much less power than the big parties. While extreme views, even dangerously extreme views, can be part of parliament, it makes those ideas part of the well organized legal structure and in my view seriously deradicalises the extremes. There are some UKIP-eske parties (particularly PVV and FvD) that are represented, but still hold a minority opinion and therefore, while they are heard (which I think is important), still don't dictate government. It just makes marginalised groups feel represented. If the US had a proportional system, would systemic racism have lasted well into the 60s? Would "extreme views", such as racial equality (which, sadly, was a politically fringe idea in most of US history), have taken so long before they were taken seriously if there was a black rights party with like 20-30% (maybe even more) of the votes? A system that does not represent fringe ideas works against progress. I don't think it is a coincidence that countries that had things like gay rights first are almost all proportionally represented democracies. The idea of a democracy itself was a fringe idea not that long ago.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
I don't know how much the money argument really holds, since people do it all the time in poor countries that actually don't know if they have food tomorrow. Poor people even have more kids on average within most countries (and poor countries have way higher fertility rates). People stopped having kids since the advent of anticonception and hasn't changed a lot since then. People just have the choice now, while in the past the only way to not have kids was to be celibate all your life. People want to be rich, which is indeed easier when you don't have children, but being poor is and never has stopped people from having kids if they really want to. What does stop people from getting kids is stress, and I do believe more and more people are stressed out from the work they do, more then we used to. But I didn't have a job 40 years ago (I wasn't even alive), so I don't really know. A single income household has become rare and people aren't willing to go back to the standard of living of 70 years ago. And the standard of living 70 years ago wasn't the the typical atomic family you see when we think of the 50s, that was like the top 10%. A lot of people, way more than now, lived in abject poverty. A lot of people didn't have a car, or even a washing machine. They had to wash all the clothes by hand.
I'm not blaming people at all (I don't have nor want kids myself), I just think the financial argument is bullshit. There are many arguments to not want children, but money isn't really one of them. The only reason fertility is dropping even more is because it has become more socially acceptable to do so. And I do also think that peoples perception of what your standard of living should be has increased a lot, more than what the increase in real income is. The ever present media where you constantly see rich people and excessive marketing may have something to do with it. Ads work, otherwise companies wouldn't pay for them, so I wouldn't be surprised if a lot of people actually got worse with money with how prevalent the constant in your face 'buy more stuff' our society has become.
1
-
1
-
@Pelsluisje oh god niet dit... Ik heb het uiteraard over het broeikaseffect wat pas zo'n 200 jaar echt significant aanwezig is. Maarja als jij je kop in het zand wil steken, ga je gang. Er is niet heel veel wat ik er tegen kan doen. Zoals de video ook zegt, er zijn ook andere redenen waarom er klimaatverandering is (de afstand tussen de aarde en de zon is er bijvoorbeeld ook 1), maar dat neemt niet weg dat er overduidelijk bewijs is dat CO2 (en andere gassen, maar CO2 is de belangrijkste) uitstoot in de atmosfeer significant bijdraagt aan klimaatverandering, daar gaat het om. Maarja dan moet je daadwerkelijk papers gaan lezen ipv random videos kijken van mensen die ook de ballen verstand ervan hebben. Ik loop niet random achter de meute aan, maar lees de onderzoeken en dan kan je maar 1 conclusie trekken: klimaatverandering door de mens is een probleem en daar moeten we wat aan doen. Tegen de status quo zijn maakt je niet slim of 'woke' ofzo. Je eigen mening vormen op basis van de feiten is dat wel. Achter klimaat ontkenners aan lopen is juist maximaal kuddegedrag, laat namelijk meteen zien dat je zelf nog nooit een onderzoek gelezen hebt (of zo intellectueel oneerlijk bent dat je alleen die 3 onderzoeken gelezen hebt die jou 'waarheid' laten zijn), en klakkeloos aanneemt wat andere mensen zeggen. Als je zelf namelijk de natuur en scheikunde zou snappen van de processen die plaatsvinden, dan kan je maar 1 conclusie trekken: dat klimaatverandering van menselijke oorzaak gewoon een feit is, en dat dat best wel reëele gevolgen kan hebben.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@SilviaVanThreepwood dat werkt in geen enkele parlementaire democratie zo. Op dit moment zit in Polen de grootste partij niet aan tafel bij de coalitie onderhandelingen. Alleen in 2 partij staten werkt het zo, omdat je dan als je wint automatisch een meerderheid hebt. Wilders heeft 25% van de stemmen, en 75% is het in mindere of meerdere mate dus niet met hem eens. Het is meestal wel dat dat inderdaad zo gaat en ook in Nederland gaat het natuurlijk bijna altijd zo dat de grootste partij de premier levert, maar dat hoeft niet. Uiteindelijk moet er een meerderheid zijn voor het maken van wetten en kan een meerderheid van de kamer een minister naar huis sturen als die het niet eens zijn met het beleid. Dat is hoe een parlementaire democratie werkt. Het kabinet hoeft niet eens van partijen te zijn. Coalitie akkoorden staan helemaal niet in de wet, sterker nog, politieke partijen staan niet eens in de wet. Er worden grondwettelijk gezien 150 individuen verkozen om de kamer te vormen, niet meer, niet minder. In Polen gaat het nu niet zo, zowel Italië als Griekenland hebben meerdere zaken kabinetten gehad waar dus geen enkele partij in het kabinet zit. In bijna heel Europa werkt het zo zoals in Nederland. Wij hebben wel een vrij lage kiesdrempel waardoor het effect wat extremer is dan in sommige andere landen waar de relatief hoge kiesdrempel zorgt voor een klein aantal partijen met veel zetels. Maar fundamenteel werkt het vrijwel overal in Europa het zelfde, buiten het VK om dan, die een systeem hebben wat meer op het Amerikaanse systeem lijkt met een districten stelsel waar het dus winner takes all is. Maar daarmee creëer je een dictatuur van de meerderheid, waar ik best wel moeie mee heb zelf.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@tank7474 Waar baseer je dit op? Dat langere gevangenisstraffen recidieven verhogen is uit meerdere onderzoeken gebleken nl. Nou doelde ik in mijn oorspronkelijke bericht overigens op de initiele kans op het plegen van een misdaad, niet op recidieven. Maar waar het vooral over ging is dat doel van rechtspraak niet boetedoening zou moeten zijn maar het voorkomen van misdrijven, iig in zwaar criminele gevallen. Civiele zaken zijn heel iets anders. Ik heb trouwens nergens expliciet gezegd dat het 10 jaar zou moeten zijn en dat verlof in die 10 jaar zou zitten. Ik heb express helemaal geen concreet voorstel gedaan, omdat ik daar simpelweg niet genoeg kennis over beschik. Wel weet ik dat uit onderzoek blijkt dat het veranderen van de strafmaat van zware misdrijven, zowel naar boven als naar beneden, geen significant effect heeft op het voorkomen van zware criminaliteit. Mijn argument is dat ik ethische bezwaren heb tegen levenslang, en uit onderzoek blijkt dat het ook nog niet eens effectief is. 10 jaar vernietigd je leven, 25 jaar ook. Het enige wat het doet is dat het nog moeilijker is om terug te keren in de samenleving. Het gaat helemaal niet om op de vingers tikken, maar jaren in de cel zet je misschien wel aan het denken van waar ben ik mee bezig in mijn leven? En dat gebeurt ook daadwerkelijk best wel vaak. Dat mensen echt een omslag maken in hun leven wanneer ze vrij komen. Als er genoeg hulp is vanuit de overheid, scheelt dat ook enorm. Leuke bijkomstigheid: mensen in de cel zijn insane duur, als in meerdere mensen betalen belasting om 1 iemand in de cel te houden duur. Dus het scheelt ook nog eens miljoenen als je iemand 20 jaar eerder vrij laat. Het gaat niet om op de vingers tikken, maar dat is 10 jaar ook zeker niet. Probeer je eens in te beelden dat je alles wat de afgelopen 10 jaar gebeurt is hebt gemist omdat je in de cel zat. Ik weet wel dat ik dat extreem verschrikkelijk zou vinden.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The reason is not that it is just non western immigration. It is exactly all immigration, that is the main shift that Dutch politics saw this election cycle, people were talking about asylum seekers all the time but now it became much more the general immigration. This is mainly due to the housing crisis which is insanely bad in the Netherlands, there's a housing shortage of 400.000 homes on a population of 18 million people. A lot of people blame immigration for that shortage. So people are basically saying the country can't handle this level of population growth so we need to start restricting it. It has nothing to do with immigration from other cultures, in fact one of, if not the largest reason the PVV was so successful is that they kinda left that point behind, because being only against immigration from other cultures is seen as super racist by a very large majority in the Netherlands. The moment Wilders basically got rid if his islamophobic points as not that important and willing to loose in coalition talks, he shot up in the polls and won even more in the end. PVV is a left wing party on almost every topic (more taxes, more money for the poor, more socialised health care, free public transport just to name a few of his ideas) except for immigration in which they are very right wing, wanting to reduce the net migration (so immigration - emigration) to 0. In fact the fact that if more Dutch people move out that then more asylum seekers can come in in his proposals already shows that it has nothing to do with cultural migration and everything to do with the belief that there are simply too many people in the Netherlands.
Btw I'm not a Wilders voter, but here he's basically given all the stereotypical anglican right wing points, even cutting down on government spending and the like, even though that's just factually incorrect.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Naja, wat politici voor de camera zeggen en wat ze daadwerkelijk denken is zelden het zelfde. Neemt niet weg dat Orban redelijk gestoord is, maargoed dat is heel radicaal rechts. Niemand die zich daadwerkelijk verdiept in politiek, wat je toch wel van een politicus mag verwachten, denkt dat radicaal rechts daadwerkelijk een goed idee is. Het is puur macht vergaren voor de macht, corruptie, of gewoon totale idiotie. Uit elk onderzoek wijst dat rechts populisme slecht is voor de bevolking in elke meetbare maatstaaf. Minder koopkracht, meer criminaliteit, slechtere zorg, slechter onderwijs, slechtere sociale voorzieningen, onzorgvuldiger financieel beleid, ga zo maar door. Normaal denkende mensen die zich verdiepen in politiek zijn niet radicaal rechts.
Er zijn echt wel een hoop ideeën waar ik het persoonlijk niet mee eens ben waar ik best wel van snap dat mensen die aanhangen, maar de meeste ideeën van dit soort extremen partijen behoren daar niet toe. Ik zie simpelweg geen wereld waarin deze mensen daadwerkelijk geloven dat Europa met die ideeën daadwerkelijk vooruit komt.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@headphoneguy9086 how would that work? Air is very light, so to get any reasonable amount of ballast for the ship, you'd need either a huge part of the space of the ship, or some absolutely insane pressures. Both would be a bad idea. If it is big there's very little space left to actually generate lift, so the cargo capacity goes down massively, really high pressures is difficult and extremely energy expensive to achieve (if it is 1/20 of the volume, which is still a huge volume, you'd need close to 200 atmosphere of pressure to ballast the ship, which is practically unfeasable, and even if it is, would be so energy intensive, that you would have been much better off just using a plane or even a helicopter). Also it would cost a lot of electricity. It just seems way easier to just put some rocks on the ship. These all sound like incredibly difficult and energy expensive solutions for a very simple problem.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@vylbird8014 well that's what the deposit is for, that is used all over Europe. You pay a bit more for each bottle (plastic bottles and cans too btw), and you bring them back to get your money back. Works really well and is implemented in most of Europe (if not EU law, I'm not sure, but the deposit has existed for decades at least in the Netherlands and Germany, and most other European countries too I believe). If you just put it in the trash, glass is horrible for the environment (way more energy intensive to make). What makes it good is the fact that you can use a bottle 5-6 times before it needs to be recycled (and braking bottles is basically a non issue, it does happen, but so rarely it's a rounding error, since people handle them with care because if you bring them back, you get money for it).
Coca Cola still uses glass bottles a lot actually, but mostly for restaurants and bars, where 0.25 liter bottles are the standard for selling soft drinks.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@ShikiByakko like I said theres no reason why federalisation would mean less power to nation states though. It would just mean that the power that the EU de facto already has would just be formally supported in a fully democratic structure. In the end a federal state is defined by its member granting power to the federal government, but the sovereignty is with the states, not the federal government. What you are describing is a unitary state where the sovereignty lies with the national government and the states only hold the power that the national government deems them suited to hold. A national government can retract powers from the states at their whim. A federal government only has the powers that the states are willing to give them, that's the fundamental difference. You're here arguing that a unitary state for the EU is a bad idea, which I fully agree with. But that is not what federalisation means. Federalisation would just mean that the powers the EU already has follow a democratic properly designed structure, rather than the mess it is now which is really just the result of decades of slightly tweaking things from a framework that was something completely different (just a lot of trade agreements really). The fact that the European Council has more or less unrestricted power is very weird and not really that democratic, since they are representatives of a government that is chosen by national representatives. So these are 3 layers removed from the actual voters which is not very democratic. And the fact that there is almost no check on their power doesn't make it better. Estonia could still hold quite a lot of power in a federal system as long as the sovereignty remains with Estonia. Like in the US, where the state actually has a far greater influence on the lives of its citizens than the federal government has. Healthcare, education, policing, infrastructure, culture (like theatres and music halls and the like) are all matters of the state. Even laws are mostly stately affairs, not federal ones. There's a reason why every US state has their own court and it matters which one you go to. They literally have different laws, not unlike the way it's different to go to a French or Dutch court. The only things that are federal in the US have been decided at some point to make federal affairs by the states. Which after 200 years is quite a bit to be fair, but fundamentally the federal government can't do anything unless the states agree. And even then there's a senate where representation is not equal at all, every state has 2. So there's absolutely no reason to assume that in a federal system Estonia would lose power and France would gain it, in fact the opposite is quite likely depending on the way it is implemented.
Edit: also the US was not really new. The 13 colonies had existed for hundreds of years at that point and were completely independent colonies. This idea that the US was far closer culturally and socially is largely untrue. In fact it were mostly the fringes of society that travelled to the US, so extremists with wildly different ideologies were far more numerous relatively (the 13 colonies only had a small fraction of the pupolation that Europe had at the time) than they were in Europe. If anything Europe has always been more ideologically united than the US was in 1776. Particularly nowadays, when the EU is far more politically, culturally and socially connected than the US was in 1776, mostly simply because of stuff like this, where I can talk to you despite you not even knowing who or where you are. The human experience has never been more similar than it is nowadays. The differences between European countries are far smaller than the differences within them, and have been for decades. The idea that Europe is too culturally diverse to be in a Federal state just holds no ground. There is definitely such a thing as European culture, and yeah of course there are big differences between countries, but so do there exist within countries. Nobody denies that Dutch culture exists (well some people have in the past, but almost no one does), yet there are clear cultural distinctions between let's say Eindhoven and Groningen, or even Eindhoven and Helmond (2 cities that are like 20 min by car removed from each other). That does not mean that there isn't such a thing as a European identity. All the really fundamental ideas are shared within Europe. If you just look at politics (which is what we really care about when talking about federalisation anyway) we see that on almost all the core issues every state within the EU agrees. It's really only in the margins that there are differences. All the big events in European history are taught throughout Europe, while for example American history is barely more than a footnote in European history classes. I've learned probably 100x more about the Roman empire than the American one in school, yet the borders of the Roman Empire only barely reached the Netherlands, because there absolutely is such a thing as a European identity and what happened in Italy at that time is also part of our culture. I've been taught about German composers and the French Revolution in great detail. Yet what I learned in school about the US is barely anything more than they had slaves and it was bad (I know a lot more now about it, but that's despite the education system, not because of it). In fact it was only in my 20s that I realised that segregation was still a thing in the US in the 60s. Before that I always kinda assumed it was an 18th and early 19th century thing. If such a thing would have happened anywhere on the European continent at that time, I definitely wouldn't have made that mistake. And in our history books Asia and Africa didn't even exist until the Europeans got there (I've heard that's better now than back when I was in middle school, but still). Europe has a shared history, it has a shared culture, it has a shared identity. It's what defines Europe, since from any other perspective, it's just a peninsula of Asia, to call Europe a continent is actually kinda weird. It is exactly its shared history and culture that defines it as something at all. To say that Europe is not culturally unified means that A: you only know Europe and therefore only see the differences and not the similarities, or B you don't know Europe at all.
1
-
@ShikiByakko those powers are still given to the US government by the states (quite a while ago to be fair in most cases). And the US government is still nothing more than a bunch of state representatives, so every federal law is passed by the states. My point is much more that in the US the government basically has no power over the vast majority of state affairs. Only in some really weird ways by kinda misusing the constitution for things it clearly wasn't designed for can the supreme court indeed mingle into state affairs, but that's about it. Any new federal laws are specifically approved by the senate, which is a body of state representatives. So the states give power to the federal government. There is no reason to assume that any European federation would give the same rights to the federal government as the US has done. I'm giving the US as an example of what a federal system means, and you immediately assume that we would have the same laws, while that is of course a completely separate issue. It is up to the states to determine what powers are given to the EU, and nothing else. A federal government usually has a unified foreign policy and is considered 1 nation outwards, but even that is up to the nation. I mean just imagine the EU having 1 football team in the world cup, it would win every tournament. For example the UK plays most competitions still as England Wales Scotland and Northern Ireland independently, there's no reason the EU couldn't still do the same. But geopolitics would be unified yes.
Also the EU is not just a bunch of trade agreements anymore and hasn't been for a long time. The EU has a court (that regularly has rulings), regularly presents itself as a single diplomatic entity on the geopolitical stage (more often than not it's the EU that makes deals, and not just trade deals, with foreign partners, such as migration pacts), it has a single monetary policy, and EU law stretches far futher than trade agreements. EU law covers extensive privacy laws, environmental protections, heavy mingling with the agricultural industry, and even specific regulations on how governments can operate, just to name a few. The EU even subsides the arts and immaterial cultural heritage in places. For all intended purposes the EU already is a federal state, it just isn't recognised as such, denying it the opportunity to reform the political structure (not necessarily its powers) to accommodate that. Also it would massively reduce the administrative costs alone already if foreign affairs would be formally an EU thing rather than just in practice. It would mean for example that the EU just needs 1 embassy in every country rather than the 27 it has now. But also Brussels itself could be far more efficient in operation when it is just actually recognised as a federal government. There's already a European police force with pretty significant powers (Europol), and even healthcare has been a European topic to a certain extent, such as the European vaccination strategy. To say that the European Union is nothing more than a trade block is just wholly untrue and has been for well over 2 decades. The European Union is a federal state in all but name. I think it's highly time we make it one in name as well.
1
-
1
-
1
-
I mean that's kinda what happens with most cars... Honestly it makes sense, nowadays optimising games has some very deminishing returns. It's often better to focus on other stuff, like bug fixing or adding more features to a game. Optimising isn't that important anymore and it just makes better games. Are there still bad games? Yes, of course, but the frequency at which there are good games has gone up quite a bit in the last 15-20 years. Everyone just forgets all the stupid boring games that came out in 2005 and only remember the gems, and then claim that games used to be better, which just isn't true, it's the opposite. If you're comparing one of the best games between 2000 and 2010 to a modern game, you have to compared it to the game you loved to most that came out in the last 10 years, now lets see which one is winning. You shouldn't compare Skull and Bones to Elder Scrolls Oblivion, you should compare it to Sonic: the Hedgehog (2006).
1
-
@houseofancients Ik heb geen idee of in de buurt van Den Bosch een geschikte locatie is (letterlijk mijn achtertuin gaat lastig worden, want die heb ik niet), maar ik heb er absoluut 0 problemen mee als het hier in de buurt opgeslagen wordt. Zolang het veilig geregeld is is het prima wat mij betreft. En uranium, ja op hele lange termijn raakt het op, maar dan hebben we het over 100en zo niet 1000en jaren, je hebt tenslotte maar heel weinig uranium nodig voor een reactor en het komt vrij veel voor. En als we het energieopslag probleem voor een gedeelte 100en jaren vooruit kunnen schuiven is dat een groot goed. De materialen die we gebruiken voor zonnepanelen raken ook op tenslotte. Zolang entropie blijft toenemen in het universum raakt alles op, dat is nou eenmaal een feit, echte permanente duurzaamheid bestaat niet, maar je kan het wel vertragen, en kernenergie is iets waar heel veel generaties mensen profijt van kunnen hebben. Zoals de grafiek al aangaf is het een stuk minder vervuilend dan zonnepanelen bijv. De reden dat we geen verrijkingscapaciteit hebben is omdat we bijna geen kerncentrales hebben. Je wilt toch geen verrijkt uranium per schip over de oceaan sturen in grote hoeveelheden. Ik neem aan dat die verrijkingscapaciteit onderdeel is van het plan bij het bouwen van de kerncentrales.
Kerncentrales is een bestaande technologie. Energieopslag op industriële schaal is geen bestaande technologie. Met alleen zon en wind krijgen we simpelweg regelmatig blackouts omdat het toevallig even niet waait snachts, en volgens mij wil niemand dat. Uiteindelijk hebben we ook opslag nodig, maar zoals ik dus al zei, die technologieën zijn nog vele malen duurder. Dit is een geteste goede en veilige technologie (de meltdown in Fukushima was nauwelijks een ramp te noemen, en dat gebeurde tijdens een aardbeving en tsunami van extreme krachten, de enige echte kernramp was Chernobyl, en daar is zo veel tegelijk fout gegaan dat je dat niet echt kan vergelijken met een moderne reactor). 40 jaar naast een kerncentrale wonen is veiliger dan 1 keer met de auto op vakantie gaan.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@giftzwerg7345 sorry but that's just incorrect. Pitched battles were fairly uncommon. The vast majority of military actions were either raids or skirmishes, or sieges. The hundred years war to give just one example had many many sieges, while only a hand full of field battles happened. For a field battle both sides need to think they have the upper hard, since otherwise you can just run away (unless you get cornered against a river or something like that, but that doesn't happen a lot). Sieges happen at strategic positions and are usually where wars are really won. They are just far more time-consuming, and often take months to succeed.
Field battles just catch the imagination a lot more, so they are a lot more discussed, and in movies even more, since they can be very cinematic. But fortifications are definitely good, and you don't run away from them just because you can't attack as well through fortifications. Definitely not when you are on the defensive anyway like in these cases. If you have technological and numerical superiority and are on the attack, yeah a battle in an open field is exactly what you want, the opponent is unlikely to oblige though.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Hexagonal roads have 2 problems though, cities tend to start with a few straight roads that already exist (and there are no straight roads at all in a hexagonal grid), second, buildings are basically always rectangular for many reasons, if you have hexagonal roads you get a lot of awkward shaped buildings (and if you make the blocks huge you have a lot of unused space in the middle). Main problem though is that you need an empty plot of land to build a city for this to work, which almost never happens. Even grid systems like NYC evolved relatively natural. They got build block by block next to already existing straight roads. You can't really build a hexagonal grid in a natural way, you basically have to plan the whole city, or at least part of a city at the same time. If that comes up, it would be interesting to investigate, but that happens very rarely. There is also a reason that blocks are basically never square, you want to maximize road access, and an orthogonal grid has that in spades without having an extremely high road density (by having one direction be fairly close to each other, but the other direction not. Just look at the map of NYC the streets are way closer together than the avenues, this way all buildings have street access (people want windows in their buildings so there is a certain natural length of a building), but the amount of streets is minimal. You can do this by sort of 'squashing' the hexagonals, which would mean decent road access without making the hexagonals super small. Another solution is to not have hex parks, but make every center of every hex a park, that way all buildings have a road side and a park side, but that would mean relatively low building density, since like 1/3 to half the city would be parks (depending on the size of the hex). That still leaves the awkward building shapes and no straight roads, which almost all cities are built around. But for a neighbourhood of lower density than the city center it would make a ton of sense. You could even have a road through the hexagonal buildings to create a kind or cul de sac in the hex so there is road access to maybe something like bar in the center of the hex, or a sports facility. These would be very small roads with very little use.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
12:46 Yes, the flag was orange white and blue, often called the 'prinsenvlag', or the Prince's flag, named after prince William of Orange. Red was adopted already in the late 16th century as the 'statenvlag', or the state's flag. Both were common at the time, there wasn't really a truly official flag back then. The red has always been more sybolic for the state and was a more republican symbol (in the literal sense, as in for the abolition or at least reduction of power of the crown, it has nothing to do with US politics), while the orange was more 'royal' and sympathising with the crown. However in the 30s the orange variant became very popular amongst Nazi sympathisers, and the red variant (as we know it today) got codified into law, as proposed by the queen in fact, in order to clearly distance the royal family from these Nazi sympathisers. Nowadays the orange white and blue has a heavy nationalistic connotation, a bit like the confederate flag has in the US.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1