> Would you let one or two cities have veto power over the policy of an entire country?
And this is why analogies are bad.
A few important details:
1) The EU is not a country.
2) The one-country veto already has limited applications within the context of the EU. Foreign policy is one of the most important, but most EU laws start from the Commission and go through Parliament instead where they pass by a simple majority.
3) What von der Leyen is in effect asking for is for EU member nations, who are sovereign and with each having their own foreign policy, to subordinate their foreign policy to the EU’s foreign policy. That is a massive power shift from the members to the EU Commission.
Political structures exist to influence the world around them.
A thousand or even a few hundred years ago most people travelled very little and often were born, lived and died in the same village. At that time the village was the natural unit of organisation.
As communications improved, with horses, trains, planes, internet the unit of political organisation had to scale up to cities, regions, nations and now supra national organisations like the EU
The nation state is an outdated concept that has lived its time.
In a world where those we need to talk to are the US, China, Russia even big EU countries like France and Germany are too small so we need to scale up.
The nation-state is a current living concept that nation-states and their peoples for the most part are incredibly attached to. If you want to convince the peoples of the EU that is an outdated concept that has lived its time, that is a tough and long road ahead of you, or von der Layen if that is the road she’s pursuing but right now there’s plenty of national governments well beyond Hungary that have been displeased with von der Leyen specifically stepping on their toes.
Right now, the way the EU is constituted, the EU takes a backseat to national governments on most foreign policy. Trade is the biggest exception. Reversing that is as an ask she can make, but it’s an enormous ask that if the member states of the EU concede to, will still be an enormous concession, and it’s not something the EU is structurally positioned under its own Treaties and laws to either command nor demand.
I tried it a few different times a few different places about 7 or 8 years ago, and it wasn’t bad when prepared by the right hands… but after that I never ate again.
At the end of the day, given a choice between meat and not meat, I’m never choosing not meat. On the other side, what vegetarians who are actually dedicated to the cause are going out and seeking something that’s just like meat? There’s a niche, sure, but it’s a niche.
I'm with you. I'm not eating it for philosophical reasons and it's an interesting exercise at best. In the end I'm going with actual meat because it's readily available, half the price and it tastes good.
If something gets flagged down that hard, it’s easy to see in show dead. I almost never see anything flagged/dead that didn’t actually deserve it. The moderation here is excellent.
Or: a guy who is anti-copyright is performing an angle shoot to see if he can get some legislators to bite.
The EU taking staunchly anti-American positions and targeting American businesses looking for a way to “legally” rob them blind is probably not going to work out for them in the long run.
So rob American businesses blind, but say you didn’t, but if you did, they had it coming anyway because of an unsubstantiated flimsy moral justification that disregards the purchasing choices of the EU citizenry, businesses and governments?
Apple's policies banning developers from referring customers to alternative payments has been widely ruled illegal around the world, first and foremost in the USA where they were even referred for criminal investigation for continuing to do it after being court ordered to stop.
Google has been twice convicted of antitrust monopoly abuse in the last year in the USA, and found to have exploited user privacy settings several times.
Meta's harmful practices have been continuously revealed in court: allowing sex trafficking and prostitution to help train their AI, allowing scam ads because they're profitable, deliberately exploiting children spending in games because it's profitable, and illegally tracked users.
Amazon's antitrust for exploiting vendor data is ongoing, so I guess you can have a point there.
Because it’s essentially propaganda. By conflating “Not Implementing something Google did” with “Intentionally Crippling”, they hope to pressure Apple by through either the general public (the PR game) or through Government mandates (the lobbying game).
This has been going for at least as long as Blink was forked off WebKit.
And why Apple? Because Apple’s the only other browser giant, and they do have motivation to not implement a lot of these features. Frankly a lot of these are features I don’t want in my fucking browser either. But web developers, and businesses that predominantly rely on the web (such as Google) want as many complex APIs as possible implemented in the browser.
This is probably like a browser extension and 45 minutes of vibe coding. I threw together a minimal MetaMask clone in a day, a simple page translator can’t even be a fraction of that. I actually love this idea so I might do it myself.
Well iWork too. Before that, AppleWorks/ClarisWorks, but yeah, there's things like OpenOffice.org/StarOffice/LibreOffice/NeoOffice which are pretty much all the same lineage (StarOffice and its derivatives). Zoho's is Zoho Office Suite, which at least adds an extra word.
"Work/Works" tended to be used for specifically integrated office suites (AppleWorks/ClarisWorks, and then Microsoft Works). Though iWork is _not_ one, granted.
I think integrated office suites have now entirely died out.
LibreOffice is like Office a collection of intercompatible apps. Microsoft Works was a single application offering Word/Excel/Outlook-like functionality.
1980s office suites very commonly included terminal emulators, because they were in high-demand back then
Most large enterprises, you’d have core business applications running on a mainframe or minicomputer or Unix host, and you’d need a terminal emulator to access them from your PC/microcomputer. A lot of places used mainframe/minicomputer-based email/calendar (e.g. IBM PROFS, DISOSS, SNADS, Office/36, OfficeVision; DEC ALL-IN-ONE; DataGeneral CEO; HPMAIL; etc) and centrally hosted word processing systems (e.g. IBM DisplayWriter) were commonly used for document/content management. And then added to that you had services like CompuServe and BBS systems
It is likely the Microsoft Works developers dogfooded its terminal emulator a lot, since at the time Microsoft ran its business on Xenix servers, until they eventually migrated to Windows NT in the first half of the 1990s
In fact, MS-DOS was initially developed on mainframe/micros and targeted the IBM PC via cross compilation and link cable, they weren't doing it directly.
Well no, it’s about legally gating the ability to copy so the original author doesn’t have to compete in the same market to sell his own book with every other bloke with a printing press and a copy of the book. Everything else is an addendum.
Don’t confuse the social justification with the actual purpose of copyright law just because it’s written into the US Constitution that way. America didn’t invent copyright law.
And this is why analogies are bad.
A few important details:
1) The EU is not a country.
2) The one-country veto already has limited applications within the context of the EU. Foreign policy is one of the most important, but most EU laws start from the Commission and go through Parliament instead where they pass by a simple majority.
3) What von der Leyen is in effect asking for is for EU member nations, who are sovereign and with each having their own foreign policy, to subordinate their foreign policy to the EU’s foreign policy. That is a massive power shift from the members to the EU Commission.
reply