Good man. I agree 100% - the more warming we get, the bigger of a difference each .1 degree makes. So we should only get more aggressive about climate change the worse it gets instead of giving up.
Good man. I agree 100% - the more warming we get, the bigger of a difference each .1 degree makes. So we should only get more aggressive about climate change the worse it gets instead of giving up.
Nahe 50% ist für Spitzenverdiener. Also Fachkräfte. Die Leute, die man angeblich so dringend haben will.
Man hinterfragt es normal nicht weiter, bis man mal ein Praktikum in der Schweiz macht, wo nur 8.5% Steuern gezahlt werden … und dann ist man richtig verwirrt.
Ist das nicht literally das setup zu bahnwärter Thiel?
Kann man da nicht Anzeige wegen volksverhetzung stellen? Da wird sich bei den Riesen Firmen nie was ändern, außer legal klopft an. Und dann geht das aber extrem schnell, glaub mir.
Kann leider nur einen upvote geben, aber das trifft den Nagel auf den Kopf.
Die „gute nachricht“ ist, Bayern war schon immer so! Hier die Ergebnisse von 2003:
Bottom line kommt man auch da auf ca. 65% rechts. Ich vermute mal, das gute ist, es ist nicht mehr geworden …
Jo, sobald andere Parteien gewählt werden „fehlt ihnen das bayerische gen“, wait what …
Top posting.
Leider ist es immer häufiger so, dass wenn man sich auch nur ein bisschen mit einem Thema auskennt, man merkt, wie krass es in den Medien misrepräsentiert wird.
Und wie sollen das die Grünen gegen 2 blockierer in der Koalition durchsetzen? Lindner brüstet sich ja grade damit was alles zusammengestrichen wird.
Aber irgendwie ist’s am Ende immer der Fehler der Grünen …
Der Artikel hat völlig recht. Die Politik in Deutschland hatte Jahrzehnte lang panische Angst vor dem „Verlust von Arbeitsplätzen“. Man schaue sich nur mal die causa Galeria Kaufhof an, oder wieviel Geld den Autounternehmen hinterher geschmissen wird, wenn sie auch nur einen Hauch von Rezession wittern.
Dabei ist im Kapitalismus (und daran glauben wir ja alle :-) das scheitern von Unternehmen ein - wenn nicht DER - entscheidende kontrollierende Faktor. Ineffiziente Unternehmen gehen pleite, lassen eine Lücke in der Nachfrage entstehen, die durch (bessere) startups wieder gefüllt wird.
Das muss man Amerika lassen, bei allem was sie falsch machen, die sind nicht zimperlich, wenn Unternehmen pleite gehen.
Viele andere Rahmenbedingungen sollten natürlich auch verbessert werden (anti Korruption, anti Monopolismus, bessere Digitalisierung, Startup Förderung, etc), aber man muss sich halt auch mal trauen, unternehmen und Leute scheitern z zu lassen wenn ihr business model Korks ist.
Wouldn’t it be boring if everyone just agreed on everything? :-)
Don’t get me wrong, I am the first one to criticize Google when they mess up, but recently I have observed that piling on Google is just appears to be en vogue. I think it is important to understand what you are criticizing/outraged by, otherwise you are letting yourself be manipulated somewhat too easily.
I, for instance, don’t fully penetrate the WEI proposal, I admit. All the more I am befuddled by the overwhelming news cycle this generates, and I can’t help but wonder … why?
Anyway, when I wrote the top level comment, all other comments were just “suck it google” in various flavors, and I was disappointed by the lack of depth in the discussion.
In the meantime, this has changed, see my edit.
I do not see how my advice applies to my own comment. To me, this proposal is exactly like all other proposals, I don’t really think about it at all, and I don’t have the context or the background knowledge to judge its usefulness.
But okay, if I try to understand it: this seems to be an attempt at stopping the cat-and-mouse game between browser fingerprinting tech and browser obfuscation tech, and instead make it - optionally - possible to identify yourself as a „real“ user. You can opt out, and I sincerely doubt that Google would lock out users that will opt out or use another browser. Why? Because they would be leaving free ad money on the table, and they don’t do that.
So I don’t really see how that changes the ways of the internet, since fingerprinting is being done already, so, I guess, I don’t really care for this proposal one way or the other.
Google does not sell data to advertisers, that is incorrect.
You are correct that Google cross-correlates some data for integrating features, but as I said, you can just go and delete your data, and it will continue to work just fine.
Maybe it’s also useful to remind oneself that you do get lots of services from Google for free - and considering they are free (!), imho, Google is taking about the most ethical approach it economically can. (Ie., they will use your data to tune full integration of their products and serve ads for you, BUT you can always opt out and delete it)
I fail to see how meta and twitter are so much different in the range of products they offer. Meta e.g. operates the larges private messaging app on the planet and they DID sell (or accidentally leak, however you want to put it, see Cambridge analytica) their data.
Makes sense to me!
As pointed out in another comment, the proposal explicitly states that web sites have to function without this feature; and chrome itself will keep it disabled for a random 5% of users.
Isn’t it already effectively very easy to force a specific browser on a website? The explainer touches on that, browser fingerprinting is so powerful to date that you can already easily tell individuals and their browsers apart. What’s changing with this proposal wrt your examples?
Great comment! I don’t understand the proposal well enough to answer that, but I still would like to commend you on taking the time to look into this and writing it up.
From what I can tell, out of all the big tech firms, Google goes to the greatest lengths preserving your privacy. You can even go to your profile settings right now and delete all your data. This was possible even before GDPR, so I am not sure how you get this picture.
What many posters in this thread fail to realize is that there is a very good reason why steam hasn’t been hit by the enshittification that otherwise permeates human existence in 2024.
Of course, Gaben as their CEO has the last say in it. And he’s just a good guy. But wait, aren’t there other companies that have good guys as their CEO and yet the enshittification persists?
The profound reason is that Valve is not a publicly traded company. They have no obligation to any investors to make number go up. They are a private company, they can do whatever the fuck they want. If they stay flat and keep paying their employees, that’s totally fine, and there is 0 pressure on them to change anything. THAT‘s why Valve seems like such a different company compared to everything else that’s out there.
Of course it’s still a choice to go public or not, and they have made the right call (for us consumers).