Just use exponential, income based fines.

Something like: 5% of your monthly salary or 0.05% of your networth, whichever is higher, adjusted by how much you were speeding of course.

Then double the fine for each infraction within one year after the first.

Audio seems to also be part of TP Vision.

https://www.tpvision.com/about-us

blablabla Philips TV and Audio brands.

Wikipedia isn’t important because of its data. Rather because of the fact it is continuously updated, extended, and fixed at a gigantic scale.

If Wikipedia ever dies, its information will lose relevance by the day. After a decade or two without a similar-scale replacement, will anyone even care?

Try not to derail please.

My comment only clarifies the Xcreet stating a German court has deemed the phrase “From the river to the sea” illegal was false. If you have anything to say about this decision from a legal POV feel free to comment, as I am not a lawyer and cannot properly evaluate this decision.

But whether or not the decision to classify Hamas as a terrorist organization is justified is not something I argued about.

This is false.

The Kammergericht Berlin (uppermost criminal court for Berlin) has ruled the reasoning of the lower instance why this phrase is not an illegal slogan was not sufficient and there were mistakes in the judgement. It has reopened the case and given it back to the same instance to re-evaluate.

There seem to be two main points:

2. The fact that a slogan is older than the terrorist organization does not preclude its classification as a distinguishing mark if the organization has adopted the already common phrase in such a way that it at least also appears as its distinguishing mark.

4. In principle, the grounds for the judgment must indicate the field of expertise of the expert consulted. If the academic training and even the area of activity in which the expert usually works remain unclear, this constitutes a factual and legal error in the judgment.

There are a couple more minor points from the full reasoning. For example, apparently the court argued even if the phrase were illegal, since the defendant claimed to be an opponent of Hamas they used the parole to display this opposition (analogous to reclaiming slurs) - but the court didn’t require the defendant to demonstrate/elaborate on this opposition.

Here’s the full decision, in German

https://gesetze.berlin.de/bsbe/document/NJRE001632041

The court has very much NOT ruled about the (il)legality of the phrase. Only that the lower court’s reasoning was shit.

It’s even better, with their current public health administration there is no way the demand for pharmaceuticals and medical tech will slow down soon.

An unhealthy, rich¹ population makes for good repeat customers after all.

¹upper 10%-20% who can afford expensive treatment

Stimmt, dass := auch für rekursive Definitionen verwendet wird habe ich nicht berücksichtigt. Ich hab kurz gebraucht um die Tautologie zu sehen, aber du hast recht, wenn man es als rekursiv ansieht bekommt man als “Definition” Σ = Σ raus (und die Menge Σ muss Kardinalität 1 haben - das macht es aber auch etwas schön, da man nun der Variable Σ eindeutig den Wert des einzigen Elements von Σ zuweisen könnte).

Σ := Σ_Σ Σ
<=> Σ = |Σ| * Σ
<=> 1 = |Σ|

Fünf Sigmas in einer Gleichung sind aber eindeutig zu viel, das könnte ja noch für Verwirrung sorgen!

Nö, gemeint war, dass ich alle Elemente der (abzählbaren) Menge Σ summiere und das Ergebnis in der Variable Σ speicher. Σ in der Summe ist dagegen nur die Zählvariable und soll zeigen, dass die zu summierenden Elemente nicht irgendwie verändert (bspw. quadriert), sondern nur stumpf aufsummiert werden.

Das meiste folgt zumindest irgendwie durch den Kontext: So kann das Σ in der Summe keine Menge sein, da man diese nicht addieren kann. Und das Σ unter dem Summen-Sigma ist eine Menge, denn man kann nicht einfach eine Zahl alleine dort stehen lassen. Ich glaub aber diese Notation für das Aufsummieren über eine Menge ist nicht Standard, habe es aber so schon gesehen. Und das := zeigt, dass das summeninnere Σ und das, das links definiert wird nicht dasselbe sind.

Das einzige Problem ist, dass man jetzt zweimal Σ hat: Einmal als Variable mit Zahlenwert und einmal als Menge. Dann muss man eben immer den Kontext betrachten, in dem Σ verwendet wird und danach entscheiden, welches jetzt gemeint ist.

Ich hoffe, das ist eindeutig genug.

Und der ist sich ja relativ sicher mit 0,12!

Ist das nun schlimmer als Groß-Sigma (Σ) als Intervallvariable zu verwenden?

Das ist ein Wortwitz! Das Xich kommt vom Namen des griechischen Buchstabens Xi, der hier abgebildet ist. Der Titel ist also vorsätzlich “falsch”, nicht fahrlässig wie es hier dargestellt wird!

Besides the fact that nearly very single account on all major social media is already identified, you are also conflating age verification with identification. Age verification can be anonymous but it depends on the implementation.

IP addresses are already linked to your identity. Or does your ISP not know who to bill every month? It’s just they’re not known to the government until a warrant is provided.

Who would you rather trust? Foreign social media companies controlled by hostile governments trying to turn your country fascist or your own government?

prevent historical comparisons

Which comparisons exactly are prevented?

I can say the AfD is a nazi party. I can say I believe they are very similar to the NSDAP 100 years ago. I can say they oppose the German constitution, especially the human rights provisions.

Same with Israel: I can say Israel is fascist. I can compare it to apartheid. I can say Israel has since its founding enageged in ethnic cleansing and genocide.

The only comparisons banned are those considered hyperbolic. I cannot say the AfD plans to commit genocide because they simply don’t. I cannot say Israel is repeating the Holocaust because it’s obviously not. Anything off an order of magnitude or more is iffy at best and illegal at worst.

Really though, it’s a mild annoyance at worst to comply with hate speech laws. Slightly adjust what you want to say and you’re fine. There are far, far more restrictive German laws that actually stifle free speech - such as the ban on “protective weapons” during protests combined with police violence not being prosecuted.

Are you even from the EU? Every EU citizen has access to an eID per the eIDAS regulation. No AI needed whatsoever to determine your age privately. No AI or US company involved.

If the companies are required to verify user’s age using this - and only this - way, they cannot further identify their users.

Only the government could in theory know your social media profile as a result. But there is absolutely nothing preventing them from requiring social media companies to disclose the phone numbers (and as such identities) of its users already.

I prefer this:

Here are the color names most disproportionately popular among women:

1. Dusty Teal
2. Blush Pink
3. Dusty Lavender
4. Butter Yellow
5. Dusky Rose

Here are the color names most disproportionately popular among men:

1. Penis
2. Gay
3. WTF
4. Dunno
5. Baige

I … that’s not my typo in #5

This heavily depends on the implementation.

The EU has had digital IDs for years now and they can be used to anonymously (according to the implementation) verify your age alone. The requesting service only receives a binary yes or no if the user is older than 18 or not.

Besides, social media sites are already aware of the identity of nearly all its users. For instance: They all require phone numbers which in many EU nations are directly linked to your ID. And that’s just a single metric! How much do you think do their apps track? How many people grant full contact visibility to them? Why do you think Facebook owns WhatsApp?

Oh, THAT’S why the command is called “cat”.

Stimmt, den gibts auch noch.

Hätte ich die Beispiele nicht aus einem englischen Buch kopiert und übersetzt, wäre ich vielleicht auch darauf gekommen.

You didn’t specify the unit.

What if the unit was points^-200 ?