Germany is Europes biggest country by population and GDP (not counting Russia and Turkey for population). It makes perfect sense for them to be the biggest spenders on defence as well.

Ironically the ultra right wing AfD party is actually against the rearmament, but that is mostly because they are Putin's puppets. (They claim fiscal responsibility concerns but this is a laughably transparent excuse)

Specifically where it relates to violent crime.

Essentially it is supposed to make statements like the following a rule violation:

"If someone murdered [fictional person] they would totally get acquitted because any jury would just nullify the charges."

While the following sentence would not be a violation of TOS:

"The murderer of UHC CEO Brian Thompson should get acquitted via Jury Nullification because [reasons] and this is super dope."

The first example could be read as a call to violence, while the 2nd is not calling for a crime.

As I understand it "All future jurors in money laundring cases should nullify, because tax evasion is... like... super cool" would also be legal, because money laundring is not a violent crime.

The toolset they use to run their containerlike system wrapping the games is called "pressure vessel".

I'm not going to tell you that you're managing your information wrong. I would physically die if I had ever more than 20 tabs (my ADHD couldn't handle it).

But I think you might be using the wrong tool. A browser (like Firefox) is not really designed as an information manager. It's primary purpose is navigating and visualizing web pages. So when you talk about "a few megabytes of text and images" thats not what your browser sees. Your browser handles more than just the text and images. It also handles fetching and prefetching, a browser history for every tab, a JS context and much much more.

What you want is some kind of personalized archiving system that processes websites into machine processable (ie searchable) structures. Firefox is not that. Maybe data hoarder communities will have the answers you seek.

Yes. But the state still has to prove that what you did was a) a Nazi thing and b) that you either knew or should have known it was so.

So if you show the Hitler salute, you'll be arrested and fined. If you give a speech in which you suggest that immigrants need to learn "the liberating power of work" (referencing the Motto of Auschwitz "Arbeit macht Frei" "Work makes Free") that is totally fine.

"We totally would have saved the climate if you had only paid us enough." Bitch, please.

The trillions the oil industry has earned over the years were not enough?
You had enough money, you had the knowledge of the problem and what you could do to fix it and you had enough time to change your strategy from lieing and denying.

The only thing you didn't have was the will to give up a single cent to help clean up the damage you have done.

Imagine what could have been done with half of the 52 trillion the oil and gas industry earned in the last 50 years (that's without coal, even). Imagine how far we could have developed renewable energy sources. What we could have achieved with carbon capture. What could be done today if the fossil industries propaganda hadn't turned climate change into a question of political opinions.

Fuck that guy. He and his ilk created this mess and they got fat of it. He doesn't get to shift blame.

Luckily, you can just pick your uniform and wear it daily. It's pretty much what I did. For everyday wear I have like 3 different pants, 3 different sweaters and a bunch of T-Shirts that go with them. So while I personally am basically in uniform daily (and many people wear identical or near identical clothes every day) I'm strictly against society encouraging uniforms in any way shape or form.

For many people wearing a uniform is obligatory at their work (retail and gastronomy workers, construction and maintenance workers, facility staff at larger buildings or events, Any kind of service person that will be seen by the public (e.g bus drivers, cleaners,...). And that is even without counting people who have to follow a strict dress code at work to the point where it might as well be a uniform (white collar office work, e.g).
So overall I dare say a majority of people actually wear uniforms in their professional lives. And even if you aren't as liberal with your interpretation of "uniform" as I was in the paragraph above (where I considered a hard hat and a high vis vest as a uniform), it is still a significant portion of the population wearing uniforms regardless.

And in a professional context I can see a point to uniforms: They remove individuality and emphasize the belonging to a larger group/organization. This can be helpful in situations where cohesion (e.g construction work, policing, school uniforms etc...) or uniformity of standards (gastronomy, public services) are more important than individual competence/style.

However, in a private context, I object to any kind of uniforms being worn or even worse, any kind of societal encouragement (which always turns into pressure) to wear uniforms. Uniforms are by their nature a limitation on your most basic form of freedom of expression. History has shown that any society that encourages uniformity over individuality in a private context will sooner or later enforce not just clothing standards but other behavioral standards too, usually to the detriment of marginalized groups. (What I'm saying is, it is a short step from "You should wear this." to "You shouldn't wear this." and from there to "You should(n't) do this" and "You can't do this.")

There is rather to many societal norms around what is "correct" or "appropriate" clothing already and I think your phantasy about uniforms comes partially from that pressure. I'd rather a society where no one gives a fuck what you wear, than one that "encourages" dress codes. And uniforms are IMHO a step in the wrong direction.

Being a democracy has nothing to do with committing war crimes.

It gets better. He resold one of the paintings in question for a profit of 320 million$. He is suing because his speculative profit wasn't big enough.

Shit or get off the pot.

Presumably there is a way to challenge this decision in court. And tbh I like this way of handling it better. Trump does not meet the basic requirements of being a president, which are:

• Must be over 35. ✔️
• Must be born in the USA. ✔️
• Must not be an insurrectionist. ❌

If a 32 year old was frontrunner to become the candidate for either party, you wouldn't expect a court proceeding to disqualify them. Same here.

I love "yeet cap rn".