Clairvoidance

Modern solutions for modern problems, ie, update as needed (and algorithms potentially invented)

Alternatively hide it under the floorboards, with a nail over it and a hammer nearby as needed

Yep, if they can control thought patterns, they can control what you do, and then they can control what you want

The end result being "well why wouldn't I want ads that show me personalized ads? I'm likely to give more of a shit", not knowing that you're signing yourself up for potentially even limiting your nuances Surveillance Capitalism style

Keeping away from X is more of a health thing honestly,

I know at least for me, it leaves me worse off reading through posts on there even if I've tried to fight them

as a former cashier, fuck talking to people, the mind's enough

honestly no, you'd hypothetically probably be better off putting something in your bag than risk being one of those times the machine asks a worker over to scan shit

Oh trust me, how pathetic the situation is wasn't lost on me lmao

Honestly reading up on Von der Leyen apparently getting away with that, wtf. Hopefully New York Times lawsuit will follow with appropriate results this year. The very least they could do is replace her with what's likely a dime a dozen.

The extreme right shouldn’t be the only platform that demands a change.

100%, it's just about balancing that with also a stable EU that allows influence that's pro citizens (or more ideally humanity)

I can only concede to needing structural improvements, tho I wanna stress that I think it was fair decision-making overall in the moment as the EP did get final say, (when we're saying that Weber was EPs choice, which again misses the nuance that he managed to come out on-top but lacking more than 50% to even have a majority of votes (182/376 when EP has 751 seats), with nobody wanting to coalition, which is what matters, just like with coalitions needing a majority of seats to form government in parliamentary systems)

An army would definitely also need a clear "fuck no, im out" option for every decision anyway, or a lot less resources than I'm currently comfortable looking at them being gung-ho about. My understanding is that the cooperation means a lot less collective money spent due to each country's specializations, but that is probably something where each nation need absolute "yes/no" power in regards to committing actual bodies to a cause.

The Spitzenkandidat system is not part of EU law, but more of a political agreement that was hyper new and with no obligation, and saying that the European Parliamanet through the spitzenkandidat should be the only voice ironically weakens the voice of national governments, particularly for smaller and less powerful countries that we want to account for. (You voiced something akin to that too)

Most people also probably couldn't tell you the process of the EP or focused much on how your vote would affect EP voting, so it's hard to on its own justify to have a democratic mandate (not that you can't take it into account. I like the idea, though I think I'm stuck between it either requires more teaching voters about bureaucratic processes that are going on, or is too much logistical tactical voting to take account for when voting). It also wasn't a real majority result in the EP, which both undermines its practical use, but also more importantly the European Council proposed a compromising team of candidates, and the EP still has to confirm the commission president and carried through with doing so. Compromise is a huge part of being in a democracy.

That company stuff is weird, especially how she's apparently not just paying the tax debt on it. She also says she's contested it but for some reason there's no public cases whatsoever to look at.

You do speak to something overall I can concede, when I'm retrospecting with the sentence that she punches left, I think I have to give you that she could've had a way way bigger progressive part of the tent if she wanted to, especially with the disregarding of Gaza.

🙌 fuck. that's my bad