DemocracyFTW2
It's not immediately clear to me but what is clear to me is that the intent of the law is to protect people that choose to surround their garden with a 3m impenetrable hedge (Tuia is popular for that). The law states you're free to admire the hedge but not free to climb a ladder to peer over it. If the same hedge gets cut down to 150cm, then the law states you're now free to admire the hedge and the garden and whatever you can make out form the house. In that case you may legally take a picture and if the angry house owner comes out jumping at you, well, bad luck for him. If you're carrying a selfie stick, that might change things.
As for Google Streetview cars, I'm normally of the opinion that when dealing with a corporation as big and powerful as this it's better to err on the side of caution and privacy. The blurring of facades tho I found totally unnecessary. Yes, the mount on top of the cars might be construed as a ladder. Also, the law was never written with a company taking photos at this scale in mind. OTOH when you actually use street view it generally does absolutely not look like the images were taken from an excessive height; for the most part I pretty much get to see what I would be able to see in person.
"our modern financial system" is what is left of a reasonable but by now largely dismantled financial system that used to exist between roughly the 1930s and 1980s.
The entire phrase "Wealth taxes are inherently stupid in our modern financial system" has "throwing up my hands" and "there's nothing we can possibly do" written all over it. The financial system is a societal construct, not a natural constant like, say, the speed of light.
If not "wealth taxes", then what? Poverty taxes?
Der letzte macht das Licht aus.
Sadly none of this applies to me, so I wonder whether it makes a good argument when my question is "should I use Drupal for my personal hobby website".
Can't answer the specifically "Drupal" part (as for me I once had a certain pressure behind me to use it, found it atrocious at the time and won't look to repeat that; if their software is much better / much more to my taste now, good on them). But in principle, at least from a certain app size upwards, I'd rather start with something working in principle, then improve on it.
That said, it might still be more difficult to get things right with Drupal than with some other softwares where you have better continuity between versions. At least traditional search engine results tend to handle version changes rather poorly meaning you'll get tons of advice that don't really apply anymore because they're years old. That happened a lot to me when trying to help out a friend with a WordPress installation.
As someone brighter than me put it, let's colonize Antarctica first. We're nowhere near being able to survive there, now, without regular support ships. Even with those, it would be considered a miserable existence by the vast majority of people. Tell me, where in the world would you go?
> I imagine it'll be voluntary
But sure my sweet summer child, just come in and take a seat...
is exactly how people described those who did the dirty work in the concentration camps
Without thinking too long or too hard I can most definitively think of some dominant individuals that should be replaced. As in, ASAP.
wrong
* https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2026/10/16/palestinians...
* https://www.nytimes.com/2026/10/16/world/middleeast/israeli-...
* https://edition.cnn.com/2026/10/16/media/washington-post-jou...
* https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2026/10/16/palestinians-us-jo...
* https://www.derstandard.de/story/3000000344596/nahost-verlet...
Which apparently why after >2000yrs of effort from both sides we now, finally!, have locks that no lockpicker can compromise.
There sure are dead languages but these two examples good they are not.
2) On the other hand I'm also critical of people who assert that "Ackshelly you didn't do any 'work' by putting the crate from this table to that table" or "sweet potatoes are not 'potatoes' at all, so don't call them potatoes".
In physics, words like 'work', 'power', 'heat' have very specific meanings. The 'heat death of the universe' is thought to be near absolute zero Kelvin a.k.a. frigging cold, no heat anywhere. The meaning of 'work' in physics has a certain overlap with what is called 'work' outside of physics (to wit, a number of different things). A typical biologist or taxonomist's view on species is much more nuanced than the ordinary guy-with-some-general-educational-background's view on the subject: the latter will tend to see species as an absolute given which science just has to uncover. Sure scientists can err but ultimately the truth of biological species is often conceived as incontrovertible by the informed layman instead of what it is: a tool for thought, a human measure brought in to help make sense of chaotic data. Darwin already said as much.
Maybe physics should never have chosen terms like 'force', 'work', 'power'. As a German speaker let me remark that especially 'power' is a bit puzzling; German has 'Leistung' instead which I think is a bit clearer. But even when scientists go and create their own terms like 'energy' or 'quantum leap', neither of which existed before being introduced with a specific scientific definition attached to them, the public often goes and appropriates them anyway. So "he's got such a cold energy" ("cold" being associated with lack of thermal energy) and "a massive quantum leap" (i.e. "a sizeable advancement" instead of "the smallest possible change") are colloquially possible.
Look at more squishy terms from squishier sciences like 'language' as used by linguists and things become even more difficult. Sure, "the language of Islamic architecture in early medieval Spain" is a nice and valid book title and no linguists will take exception. But talk about the new research on the "language of birds" in the newspaper and you will ruffle some feathers.
One has to acknowledge that people are challenged with finding words to describe a new phenomenon. Sure, we could stop at 'calculate' or 'compute', as in "ChatGPT computed some falsehoods" instead of saying it 'lied'. But even when I say that "ChatGPT's answer was wrong" doesn't 'answer', alone and by itself, already imply a degree of intentionality that is (or should be, as far we can tell) absent from a process that purely relies on solving one big formula with a pinch of randomness thrown in? Then again, "what is the calculator's answer?" was already used in the 1970s when pocket calculators were all the rage.
https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fall_Emmely
Got fired because she redeemed two orphaned bottle deposit slips worth 1,30€ (in 2009, so more like 1,50€ in today's money /s). Caused a nation-wide discussion.
The only problem with Flat Earthers is that they say things out loud. Also, grabbing other people by their **ies.
Please don't, this is madness.