I don't really see why Finland would be unable to scale production though? Expensive workforce? Surely that could be worked around, Sweden still produces semis and have similarly costly workforce. What other impediments do they even face?
> Saying this as a German, where the economy is the worst it’s been in decades and our federal government acts incapable at changing this so far.
That's not true. Germany has a 200-points plan on reducing the bureaucracy. At first it sounds like a joke, but actual points would be transformative if all points were done... I don't see it happening.
As an example, automatic approvals if a response is done within a deadline would be huge. I don't see that happening.
Or possibly happening, then there will be a scandal, and it will be rolled back.
Another funny trick is a "We are looking at it" response, or "The EIA doesn't use standardized language in ground water section, rework it" (EIA was made by company that specializes in that).
It's true but the regulations are hardly insurmountable. As a German you may have heard of such European manufacturers like Volkswagen, kuka and reinmetal
As a Swede I can add Saab(aeronautics, not the defunct car manufacturer), Scania, and IKEA to the list.
Far from a exhaustive list, but proof positive that manufacturing can in fact happen under European regulations.
I'm sure someone will fuck this up for us, but IPv6 should at least in theory enable us to be rid of NAT. Anyone who has ever done NAT traversal for peer discovery is having wet dreams about that future!
Have you tried a different theme? Perhaps you're accidentally on "nude" when you would be happier with "drunk". Or vice versa, no accounting for taste.
OP here - sorry you got the drunk theme. That shouldn't happen by default. Had you visited my site before? Are you using an esoteric browser I might not have tested?
No, a shared resource worth billions and an avenue for trade and repaired relations between the EU and Russia being sabotaged and false flagged by another country has the onus on that country.
I never understand how people bought the propaganda on this. Why would anybody think Russia would blow up a pipeline that they spent years and billions of dollars building? It requires completely rejecting all logic. And then Western countries completely stonewalling calls for an independent international investigation at the UN - why would we do that?
I also very much doubt it was the Ukrainians in by themselves - as blowing up heavily reinforced pipes 80m under the water is a rather extreme task, but at least they would have had a reasonable motive. Russia was fueling the German economy, and Ukraine would have had a viable concern about Germany prioritizing their own economy over Ukraine. OTOH it seems somewhat obvious at this point that Russia would not have threatened to turn off the gas, so it was a terrible miscalculation by whoever did it.
> I never understand how people bought the propaganda on this. Why would anybody think Russia would blow up a pipeline that they spent years and billions of dollars building? It requires completely rejecting all logic.
Wouldn't be the first time Russia to make a bold move that blows up in their face... 3-day special operation and all.
There was already no gas flowing through either pipeline at the time and with European gas reserves having been kept at an artificially low level, this could've put a lot of pressure on Germany to certify and permit gas flows through the remaining undamaged NS2 pipeline if it hadn't been a mild winter.
This could've been a massive strategic political win for Russia.
Why would there be a need for independent international investigation when both Sweden and Denmark had active investigations? It was within Swedish and Danish waters so who else has a legal claim to that investigation?
Countries directly impacted, like most of europe? They don't have a legal claim but when it's so strategic, counties get involved in other's business. Think the US international actions, but for an attach that happen on it's own continent.
The only country with a claim of being directly impacted is Germany and they also has their own investigation. Sweden and Denmark also share military intelligence with the rest of NATO, which include most of Europe.
But you are not answering the question. What need is there for an independent international investigation that has not already been served by the investigations done by Sweden and Denmark?
> I also very much doubt it was the Ukrainians in by themselves - as blowing up heavily reinforced pipes 80m under the water is a rather extreme task, but at least they would have had a reasonable motive.
I agree with the first part of your comment, but it baffles me that people keep claiming "Sending some divers from a small yacht plant a bomb underwater" would beyond the capabilities of the Ukrainian special forces.
Putin had already stopped supplying gas through the pipelines, blowing them up did not change anything for him. But it absolutely did change the moves that would be available to any post-Putin government in Moscow. Blowing up the pipelines instantly de-funded any upcoming revolution. Add a "plausible culpability" mock attack by Ukrainians who likely actually believed that their handlers were on the Ukrainian side and not Russia to foster division in the west and you have a clear "why wouldn't Russia do it?" situation.
To test 'limit > 0' according to MC/DC, you need only two values, e.g. -1 and 1. There may be other code inside the branch using limit in some other ways, prompting more test cases and more values of limit but this one only needs two.
But yes, exhaustively testing your code is a bit exhausting ;)
> He also had connections to the far-right National Democratic Party of Germany (NPD) and the Alternative für Deutschland (AfD) parties.
Following the source wikipedia gives [1], we see the extent of that "connection" was that the killer donated €150 to the AfD, and that the AfD had previously criticized the victim (by sharing the victim's exact own words online).
Let's apply your standard evenly then, shall we? A writer for the state-funded left-wing Amadeu Antonio Foundation, armed with hammers and pepper spray, attacked a right-wing activist [2]. This attack was one of many [3]. So by your standard the German state sponsors and endorses terrorists. The US Democrat party wants to create an ICE tracker [4]. ICE agents have been the targets of attacks and ambushes [5,6,6a]. And of course it was hateful rhetoric [7] against Trump and Kirk that led to their (attempted) assassinations by the left. By your standard, the Democrat party engages in stochastic terrorism.
Of course that's just guilt by (vague) association. Enough for you, but I have higher standards. Bill Clinton pardoned a terrorist who (among other things) bombed the Senate. She now sits on the board of BLM [8,9]. An axe-wielding maniac attacked a Republican senator's home. Democrat politicians then donated money to the attacker [10]. The founder of the terrorist group Weather Underground [11], Bill Ayers, is now a distinguished professor at the state-funded University of Illinois [12], so we can add them to terrorists as well. As well as the University of California, where the terrorist Angela Davis is also a distinguished professor. "Terrorist" can be a vague term, so let me be specific: she bought the shotgun seen here taped to the neck of Judge Harold Haley, and helped plan the attack that killed him [13].
"In an op-ed piece after the election, Ayers denied any close association with Obama, and criticized the Republican campaign for its use of guilt by association tactics." - perhaps you should reflect on this.
So now what? Will you reconsider calling AfD terrorists? Will you instead also call the US Democratic and the German CDU parties terrorists? Maybe even apply more skepticism to the news sources that have so deceived you by cherry-picking what they show you?
Or will you reconsider nothing, and just hope the next person you lie to is less informed? Rhetorical question.
[7] That some of this rhetoric was true makes no difference - the charge of "stochastic terrorism" had no exceptions for truth when used against the right. And indeed the AfD's statements about the victim in the case you linked are not even alleged to be untrue.
[11] At one point, the Weathermen adopted the belief that all white babies were "tainted with the original sin of "skin privilege", declaring "all white babies are pigs" with one Weatherwoman telling feminist poet Robin Morgan "You have no right to that pig male baby" after she saw Morgan breastfeeding her son and told Morgan to put the baby in the garbage. - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weather_Underground
Citation? Every democracy index I've ever heard of rates most of Europe as more democratic than the US. (Eastern Europe will typically be rated lower, all of the former USSR states seem to be struggling with various degrees of corruption or similar problems)
You may know about Rote Armee Fraktion/Baader-Meinhof-Gruppe. They were a self-proclaimed communist and anti-imperialist urban guerrilla group. They murdered 34 people. A number of these were former Nazi party members that in the 1970s had climbed to powerful positions in West Germany. OTOH, during the war nazi party membership was not exactly optional if you ran a business.
On the other side of the border: While Angela Merkel denies it, I find it extremely improbable that she did not work for Stasi in some form.
reply