Such projects are EU funded but in fact implemented through national or regional programmes agreed by the regional authorities... So it's usually at that level that favouritism or corruption plays in.
The point is that the EU funders of course know this and turn a blind eye in order to keep the people in power in the regions supporting the EU. It's just how it has always been in Europe with vassals. Feudalism has always been the government of the old world, and will always be, and the people will always love it. Now get back to work so you can afford your rent or your mortgage. Funny how most all the ancestors of Europeans worked their whole life to pay the mortgage, yet it's still not paid!
Even the concrete and steel houses often start with wood framing of some sort and end with wood as a structural part of any ceilings and roofs. Not to mention stairs, room structures/interior walls, ...
Few buildings in Europe are today solely made from wood, but nearly every building will be part wood. From the frame on which walls and floors are built up with other materials up to the roof where for most houses the very structure is made from wood, it's clear wood is one of the most essential building components. To be honest I struggle to think of any building I've ever seen that has no wood - except for semi-subterranean structures or those built out of natural structures I can't think of any.
In Spain I can tell you that wood is very rarely used except in a decorative fashion. My mom is an architect and will often look down on the fact that most North American single family homes, and even more complex buildings like five-over-ones, use wood structurally.
Reinforced concrete is almost two hundred years old by now [0]. How many people live in homes built over one hundred years ago? Not only have many of those old homes been replaced, but the population is much larger now.
the arch is almost 2500 years old now, and although you do normally use timber beams (or bamboo) to build one, they aren't part of the final structure
vaults, domes, and flying buttresses extend the arch principle to enclose large spaces. there are domes still standing made from unreinforced concrete that are 2000 years old
In England we definitely use wood in pretty much all houses. The roof trusses, the partition walls, the floorboards, beams to hold the ceiling/upstairs, fixtures (kitchen and bathroom fitted cabinets), doors etc.
I would guess the person you’re responding to doesn’t mean the hidden bits, as I’ve spent time in Spain and definitely come across wood in new buildings.
A potential reason for less obvious wood, Spain has less requirement for insulation than the UK and would benefit from slimmer walled, brick/concrete houses with no wooden partitions holding insulation for cooler temperatures during their peak heat.
Indeed, my parents' UK 1785-ish built house is mostly stone, but it has 3 big salvaged wooden beams (salvaged from shipwrecked masts) running through the frame.
I guess you miss the selling point(s) as you see the phone only as its final product and the direct benefits to you. That has never been the ambition. Here's why I bought Fairphones for my family:
* Fair supply chains. This was their original selling point and is still an incredible unique feature. They changed cobalt and copper supply chains and established tracing mechanisms that now other manufacturers can also use.
* Self-repairable. I switched two screens so far, probably not a huge cost difference to the neighbourhood dirty phone repair shop, but I feel better about it.
* Social enterprise, giving back to the community
* Nice to know my funds go mostly to a good cause and everyone in the supply and production chain is treated well (they even pay a premium to manufacturers so workers at the assembly line get paid a fair wage).
I am well aware it's not the best phone. It's rather clunky, camera used to be weak (got much better with the latest update), and I had some small issues. But overall a solid phone, I support a de kind of ecosystem that really improves things down the line and I don't need to feed Sony or Apple execs money.
After many years of working in Quality Control and Quality Assurance, Supplier Quality Management (I've been on both ends with this one) and related fields (lead auditor, product safety, material safety) for companies large and small, I can safely say that "fair supply chains" is just a marketing fairy tale. Without going too deep into this rabbit hole:
A) You only have so many suppliers. If they don't comply, and unless their performance and/or behavior significantly affects your reputation, contrary to the common belief, you don't just go to somebody else. You give them another opportunity. If they keep failing, you change your evaluation specs, wait a year, and repeat. This becomes a thousand times more of an issue once you include China and generally other countries outside the US and Europe (there are exceptions) into the equation.
B) Good luck auditing suppliers in China.
C) Good luck finding experienced auditors. They are incredibly rare and expensive. You cannot outsource it either.
D) The auditing process is expensive. That's why even the largest companies in toy manufacturing do not audit their supply chains end-to-end. Instead, you have your direct suppliers sign documents binding them to cascade your rules downstream. What happens when you find out they don't? See A.
EU legislation generally sets a maximum, but then you also have to prove proportionality to determine the actual amount (damage done + fine). Any such amount will certainly get challenged in the courts, so the Commission will get its ducks in a row before actually settling on a number.
I'm sorry that you have such an emotional reaction about a company being threatened with a fine (not even penalised yet) for harmful behaviour which they could immediately choose to stop if they'd want to.
*
Two scenarios:
Company A violates consumer rights. Government does nothing, consumers continue to get ripped off.
Company B violates consumer rights. Government threatens fines. Company either fixes the problem (consumer hsrm reduced) or eats the fine (and the money can be used to pay for useful stuff). Either way, they can no longer gain by tipping off consumers and have every reason to stop if the fine may be repeated for a repeat offender.
*
Calculating on global profits is standard practice and is done the same theme the US calculates fines (depending on what the fine is about - you might have different reference points for different harm). This is the only solution as otherwise companies will play the usual whack-a-mole where they create an "affiliate Europe" that is legally separate but pays 100% of its net profits as a licensing fee for the brand name to the parent company, thus making 0€ (more difficult to play this game with gross sales, but there are still plenty of ways to fudge those numbers).
The EU has its own subsidy programmes as well but it is a lot more complex. You need 27 governments to agree to make something happen, from 400.000 people Malta to 80.000.000 million people Germany. The small countries are terrified to be squashed by German and French power to give subsidies to their own national company, ruining the single market.
In fact you have the same issue in the US but the states have no direct say, and statistics are not done the same way - so you don't see the impact the same way and don't have discussions the same way.
Yes but Spotify gets only 70% of that cut while apple gets 100%. Without the apple tax Spotify might be able to either go down in price or increase quality/breadth/payouts to creators/other offerings/... The market is distorted and you pay more and get less if one monopoly takes all others for a ride.
Spotify is not paying 30% to apple, nor is it cheaper for Android users than for Apple users. So this is just margin for Spotify (and record labels), not cheaper products for users
It's been a long time since I read it, but as I recall the theses were that individual rights and freedoms coupled with things like the scientific method is what resulted in triumph.
The scientific method wasn’t novel to the western world. It’s origins date back to when the Moors conquered the southern half of western europe - and by almost all historian accounts - modernized many institutions over the subsequent hundreds of years (eg, from cutlery to math and science).
I think the most relevant book on the west’s success is called complexity: a guided tour
And because they had to much of science, they rejected the printing press? Does anyone read the sources anymore before they start projecting utopias everywhere?
Also by preventing proper analysis, one prevents the discovery of cultural defects and repairs, preventing liberating change and effectively kicking away the ladder of progress, a deeply colonial act.
100% agree w/this recommendation. The title is pretentious and put me off, so I missed out for a few years, but the contents are amazing. He has another related book, The Secrets of our Success, which is good. I'm happy that despite everything, at least a few people are doing cross-domain research and trying to put together and test ideas for how humanity came to be.
This is a governor's wife, not a princess.