Clairvoidance

My parents had some of the ancient ubuntu (or ubuntu based?) distros that they let me play with, I myself tried Manjaro in 2017 for a month (very scuffed back then), and then full Arch Linux since March or Apr 2021

Haven't bothered switching since, but if I did, I'm lightly curious on the NixOS hype. Why yes, I just installed Arch Linux for the archbtw, but also it feels like it just works for me at this point (yknow, till the next fuckup akin to the grub2 fiasco)

Power Off to secure that things get updated and resetting float integers in case they would go haywire

Poweroff could use more write cycles on the SSD because it has to read everything at startup, but suspend has to keep supplying power to the RAM

for this, I would say SSD is more valuable personally, so if that was my only reason, I'd suspend to RAM every time

My computer's generally doing stuff I have it set to do, so I don't suspend to RAM

Laptop gets turned off when going outside, also encrypted

2 with 3's handle,

2's head is just weirdly always satisfying

but 2's handle is a bit comical

Well Mullvad used to have port-forwarding, either it was a pain to maintain or it was abused

Keeping away from X is more of a health thing honestly,

I know at least for me, it leaves me worse off reading through posts on there even if I've tried to fight them

Oh trust me, how pathetic the situation is wasn't lost on me lmao

Honestly reading up on Von der Leyen apparently getting away with that, wtf. Hopefully New York Times lawsuit will follow with appropriate results this year. The very least they could do is replace her with what's likely a dime a dozen.

The extreme right shouldn’t be the only platform that demands a change.

100%, it's just about balancing that with also a stable EU that allows influence that's pro citizens (or more ideally humanity)

I can only concede to needing structural improvements, tho I wanna stress that I think it was fair decision-making overall in the moment as the EP did get final say, (when we're saying that Weber was EPs choice, which again misses the nuance that he managed to come out on-top but lacking more than 50% to even have a majority of votes (182/376 when EP has 751 seats), with nobody wanting to coalition, which is what matters, just like with coalitions needing a majority of seats to form government in parliamentary systems)

An army would definitely also need a clear "fuck no, im out" option for every decision anyway, or a lot less resources than I'm currently comfortable looking at them being gung-ho about. My understanding is that the cooperation means a lot less collective money spent due to each country's specializations, but that is probably something where each nation need absolute "yes/no" power in regards to committing actual bodies to a cause.

The Spitzenkandidat system is not part of EU law, but more of a political agreement that was hyper new and with no obligation, and saying that the European Parliamanet through the spitzenkandidat should be the only voice ironically weakens the voice of national governments, particularly for smaller and less powerful countries that we want to account for. (You voiced something akin to that too)

Most people also probably couldn't tell you the process of the EP or focused much on how your vote would affect EP voting, so it's hard to on its own justify to have a democratic mandate (not that you can't take it into account. I like the idea, though I think I'm stuck between it either requires more teaching voters about bureaucratic processes that are going on, or is too much logistical tactical voting to take account for when voting). It also wasn't a real majority result in the EP, which both undermines its practical use, but also more importantly the European Council proposed a compromising team of candidates, and the EP still has to confirm the commission president and carried through with doing so. Compromise is a huge part of being in a democracy.

That company stuff is weird, especially how she's apparently not just paying the tax debt on it. She also says she's contested it but for some reason there's no public cases whatsoever to look at.

You do speak to something overall I can concede, when I'm retrospecting with the sentence that she punches left, I think I have to give you that she could've had a way way bigger progressive part of the tent if she wanted to, especially with the disregarding of Gaza.

🙌 fuck. that's my bad

I think that's a pretty fair question, especially as I am kinda globalist (or at least see majority EU cooperation and correcting itself as a net-good)

if we take aside potential hoping-to-weaken-EU Russian involvement, and a lot of its de-legitimizing language, my very first concern would be making it harder to enforce common standards for instance to prevent democratic backsliding, as I see European democracy as being the best tool currently for results that both allow experts to weigh in and for the nuance of public concerns that spontaneously emerge, even if we all can argue that it will always need improvement to a lot of people.

Heightened unanimity requirements hold a lot of the union hostage, when it in general would be nice to be on the same page, but I understand it also shouldn't be so low as 60%, I would argue that current standard or maybe a tinge less is fair in that it tells you that most everyone is on-board with a decision (simplifying a lot of how the people making the final decision got in power of course, where there are maybe half of their citizens who could still oppose whatever they voted for)

So far this has helped a lot in human rights protection within the EU, collective bargaining power with the outside, enforcing a climate policy which pretty much requires everybody to step up, and like, other things that in the short-term can make for instance authoritarians be very popular at the cost of the long-term.