It’s nothing new, the only new thing is that the natural resource is sunlight.

Just like yesterday

Shout out to Farao der Nederlanden Arjen Hendrik I

You’re right about the seasons remaining the same but climate change does have an effect on the clouds in the sky, meaning climate change does effect how much uv-light reaches the surface of our planet, despite the earth continuing to rotate around itself and the sun in the same way.

It’s a lot like Great British bake-off sure, but it’s not like they show the cakes are shat out after tasting it, so i’m not sure how that is part of the comparison.

Better position would be that money they receive (profit) should be taxed since people also pay taxes based on the amount of money they receive (income). But that position is basically what we already have.

The problem with the system is that a corporation has different kinds of ‘discounts’ as workers and that those differences became excuses to greatly reduce their share of the bill (low corporate taxes are good for the economy, in general) shifting the burden to the working class (since all the money spent on education, healthcare, pensions etc does end up in the pockets of the people).

The true problem is not necessarily because the corporate tax is not high enough, it’s because the benefits of a succesful company go to a small amount of people, while a serious part of the costs (infrastructure, healthy and well educated worker) are paid by a large amount of people.

The ones who should really be taxed appropriately is this small group of people who extract a lot of value from the expenses the large group of people have. Let’s say a 1000 people together costs 1000 euro, while together they earn 1100, then it leaves 100 on the table. Right now the large group of 95 does not 95, but maybe 5 or 10. While the small group of 5 does not get 5, but 90 or 95. That small group that received the vast majority pay a much smaller percentage of what they received.

A lot of people don’t consider it trash, more like a contaminated meal.

Definitely true, the mode is much more likely 1 than 2-7 for sure.

Reading the second statement is indeed much more logical, i was so confused by the sarcasm i perceived. Thanks for taking the time to write that showing once again how much wisdom the people in this community poses.

Imagine doing all that work and after all that still believing this is the best thing to spend the money on. Either it was insanely easy to get people to donate or he just gave up on the country.

Tell me a story about Italy without telling me the story is from Italy.

Persons carried on average has to be >1.0. Might be less then 1.5 which would make your statement true after rounding down but it cannot be 1 unless there are a lot of drivers that miss a leg or an arm and you are a biggot who sees them as less than 1 person.

Guess you haven’t noticed how expensive fuel has gotten

tricornking is wrong there, the meme was not used to get broader acceptance of the theory but of broader understanding of how the acceptance was developed. I can understand the mistake, they look like the same picture but they forgo the fact the broad acceptance happened long before the internet meme was invented.

This distinction might not matter to everyone, but since i appreciate it so much when others comment with facts relevant to the historical accuracy, it seemed wise for me to take advantage of the opportunity to add to the discussion since for once I have a good enough understanding of all relevant facts.

Sometimes on Lemmy i see car vs bike posts, airplane vs train, etc. At least in the end of the day, we can all agree no mode of transport sucks more than that brexit bus. Most expensive tickets and the worst possible destination. Yikes what a shitty ride.

Oops, i replied to the wrong post.

*deletes comment, backs_into_bushes.gif*

I agree with the Nazi gold part, but aren’t peace talks held in geneva from time to time? Being a facilitator is a way of involving yourself in global politics, my point being neutrality ≠ no involvement.

Also if you include chocolate, shouldn’t there also be representation of watches, army knives and bank accounts?

I think Canada would be a lot easier to integrate than Turkey.

If you compare the people of Canada and Turkey to the people of Ireland, obviously Canada seems easier to integrate. But if you compare the people of Canada and Turkey to that of Greece or Bulgaria, then it’s much less obvious. The fact that Turkey has territorial disputes with Cyprus and Greece makes Turkey an unlikely member state, but culturally the people of Turkey (not the political system) are not that much less south-eastern European than Canadians are north-western European.

But i think practical ease of integration doesn’t have to say much. If you look at ‘compatibility’ also Belarussians would make perfect candidates for integration, but even if they would want it the political reality doesn’t allow it. Same has been long true for Northern-Macedonia joining, but in this case the blocking comes from inside forces rather than outside forces. And even where the political reality doesn’t allow it, the people might not want it (e.g. Switzerland and Norway right now), the same could appear true for Canada (or Turkey) even if it doesn’t seem like that today. If calculation are made, perhaps it might turn out Canada doesn’t end up on the receiving ends.

Would Canadians also be interested in joining if it means increased taxes to pay for the benefits of people on the almost opposite side of the globe? Especially if countries like Morocco and Turkey join at the same time, argument will be made Canadians are paying for the development of those economies. Perhaps they will argue Canada is much better off as a strategic partner than a full-on member state, despite “its legal and cultural institutions grew directly out of European predecessors”.

Either way, it has to be a two way desire, much like a friendship between two individuals. The reasons are less important than the desire. Both could become member for totally different reasons. One might join for economic benefits and the other for military strategic benefits for example, but in either way it in the end the European people (via their representatives) have to agree regardless. Again, the people of Ireland would likely be much more in favour of Canada joining than Greece or Bulgaria would be.

You need to imagine a future where this ocean is populated and as active as all the other planet’s coastlines.

That’s more a perspective of the coming centuries then it is of the coming decades though. It’s not like migration follows gradually and in line with each degree the temperature rises. Also in that scenario the temperature on the Pacific coast lines will likely rise much more then the temperature on the Atlantic coast lines because of the likely collapse of the AMOC (meaning the red line might even expand further south, perhaps making european migration away from the North Pole more likely then migration towards it).

There are many people who tried to compare current day wealth to the wealth of historic figures. Those are, afaik, never about hard facts but a way of translating an estimation. This article names 8 trillionaires for example. They give ganghis kahn an estimated $120 trillion, and consider mensa musa so much richer they call his wealth uncrompihensible. You can find similar lists online, i guess the same names will take a similar spot on the ranking, but the numbers will differ. They tend to look at relative wealth (they estimate that Elon Musk has xx % of all money globally and compare that to the estimated percentage of global wealth of a historic figure and translate that to a current day value).