Jeremy Corbin has fucked up the UK economy worse than any future Labour candidate could with his pro Brexit views.

My theory is that designers are extremely afraid that someone might notice that many areas have had enough design already and don’t really need a redesign every couple of years.

Planschen im Kühlwasserbecken?

You forgot the crucial aspect of the flying car concept. Privately owned flying cars are flown by unqualified idiots instead of qualified pilots and get basically no maintenance of safety inspections compared to planes and helicopters.

I will also never understand that whole obsession in the US with what the founders intended over what makes sense. It reminds me of people reading religious books.

There was that US TV series basically celebrating torture called 24. Not to mention every other movie or TV series with an interrogation scene.

Because we look back on the time when our parents raised us and realise they had it better than us and that progress has given way to not just stagnation but now full on regression.

Not just that but also that most of the reasons are not accidental but were predicted 50 years ago and deliberately ignored by most in the older generation for selfish reasons.

If you followed the news in recent months you would know about the European efforts about ensuring supply chains do not involve exploitation or other morally objectionable practices. These represent compliance risks to companies working with countries like China. It would be naive to assume that a statement like his about risks has nothing to do with that.

If you think you could ever trust anyone else outside maybe you closest friends and family to act in your best interest you are naive.

On the other hand if you think that all politicians are equally untrustworthy you are even more naive.

Depends on how you look at it. Some effects were probably visible even before the referendum just by announcing that. But on the other hand if you think “8 years ago is long enough that we should have seen all the effects by now” then the 4 year figure is probably more appropriate to make that evaluation.

No, what he is saying is “We don’t like that Europeans care so much about things like reliability and moral concerns, it is getting in the way of making a profit over here in China and thus getting in the way of my career as the president of the European Chamber of Commerce in China”.

See also here https://www.europeanchamber.com.cn/en/national-news/3522/european_chamber_members_elect_jens_eskelund_president_and_select_a_new_executive_committee

President Eskelund, who has lived and worked in China for 25 years, is chief representative for Maersk in Greater China and Northeast Asia. He has served two terms as vice president of the European Chamber—from 2019 to 2021 and from October 2022 to May 2023—as well as State Representative, and has also been actively involved with the Chamber’s working groups since the Chamber’s inception, including as chairman of the International Liner Shipping Sub-working Group (formerly the Maritime Working Group). He has also served as both board member and chairman of the Danish Chamber of Commerce in China.

The main reason poor and developing countries have high birth rates is that their rate of child mortality is higher and that they have no social systems to take care of the elderly so having many children is sort of their pension system. If anything we want to introduce measures there that make the high birth rates unnecessary.

Also, why would we want to make the problem worse by having births here in addition to theirs? Assuming you don’t mean the obvious racist or nationalist motivations?

Why though? There are more than enough people on this planet. Delaying the failure of pension systems for a few more decades is not a sufficient reason to screw over all of humanity.

Of course people’s opinions and beliefs can change. You just can’t decide to change them. You can obviously e.g. decide to learn more about a subject and as a result of that action your beliefs change but you can not just decide to change what you believe any more than you could decide to grow taller or to have your fingers fall off.

But what you believe isn’t a choice. You can not consciously choose to believe anything, you can only be convinced to believe or convinced, coerced, forced,… to pretend to believe but your actual belief is not under your conscious control.

It might make sense to edit the headline and add the years since “double” is basically useless without the information from when compared to when.

I mean sure, you can absolutely build a city to have enough room for cars for 10 rich assholes and everyone else can deal with the fact that the city is built to cater to those rich assholes instead of the majority of its inhabitants but I think it was pretty much implied by my statement that a car-oriented city would be the kind that has enough room for all its inhabitants and visitors to use cars and that is fundamentally impossible since cities have a lot of people and cars need huge amounts of space per user.

Actually it really isn’t easier to keep things car-oriented because building a city so there is enough room for cars is fundamentally impossible.

Nuclear material going missing and small scale accidents with it happen all the time even just with sources used in medical devices and other uses for elements with relatively low radioactivity. And people already don’t know how to recognize the signs of radiation poisoning today.

How much worse would it be in a society that forgot a storage site was there?

We had those jobs in Germany but then the CDU sabotaged the solar and wind industries.