After the referendum, the EU and Bremainers made the 2 following nation-wide elections into single-issue elections. And they burned themselves justifiably from it.
You know that is the problem with the pro EU camp, they tout their opposition as science deniers and worse, yet conveniently pretend hard numbers (ie. election results) don't exist or didn't happen - if it hurts their feelings. It's just intellectual dishonesty through and through.
That obviously makes no sense. A club isn’t a sovereign entity just because it has rules. Hungary is free to leave the EU and set a border policy that conflict with EU law if it wishes - but if it wants to remain part of that organisation, particularly one that has open borders thorough The Schengen area, then of course it needs to follow the rules.
And Poland and Italy and the Netherlands and Luxembourg etc. are all free to voice their opinion as being members of the club.
The EU is walking on thin ice: it doesn't exist since very long (at least not in that form) and the EUR is a very young currency that is already in serious trouble, with most members of the eurozone deeply indebted (and one that already partially defaulted on its public debt, Greece).
The hubris of people who think the EU can bully every single country into submission is insane. Many people aren't happy at all with what's going on in the EU. The EU screwed big times on nuclear (and recently acknowledged they fucked up on nuclear), became dependent on Russia for cheap energy (the US warned them this had potential to SNAFU and SNAFU it did) and now has one of the highest energy price in the world. Making it extremely hard for EU industries to compete with the rest of the world.
There are also many people in the EU who believe that massively importing people from Africa and poor middle-eastern countries (I'm not saying all middle eastern countries are poor: I'm saying middle-eastern countries migration into the EU is mostly from poor middle-eastern countries) won't raise the living standard of the EU.
The entire "we decide which size cucumbers should have, we decide to break encryption to protect the kids, we decide to flood the continent with migrants, etc. and you STFU or you can get out" is not an acceptable posture.
Also please let me laugh at the Schengen borders area: we saw how quickly those borders were closed during several occasion, including Covid. But lastly there have been police controls filtrating cars at the borders in Germany: got controlled twice last summer in Germany. So much for the free movement of people.
My bet is the EUR is going to die a quick death (one of the most stupid currency every invented: cannot work with different fiscal laws and different productivity in the various eurozone countries). And my second bet is that this is going to put a lot of pressure on the entire EU thing.
The EU is not doing well. The US and China's GDPs grew like crazy since the 2008 financial crisis while inflation-adjusted the EU barely moved.
At some point people should do well to wonder if the EU construct ain't the root cause of the problem.
No, EU is not the root of the problem, whatever the problem is. For example, countries are stronger, more resilient and business is more effective together than everyone trying to do it alone. And of course the EU is not perfect and there is room for improvement.
In my experience, one concrete problem is that so many people misunderstand or are unaware of basic things about the EU and why EU even exists. With the former I mean things like how the EU Parliament is put together, the relation of the EU Commission to the EU Parliament, how is the President of the EU Commission chosen (no, it's not "undemocratic"), what does Schengen mean, what is the Euro and WHY does it exist, why was there legislation which mentioned the curvature of cucumbers, and so on.
As there is no big picture, or it is rejected due to ideological reasons, the lack of knowledge and misunderstandings then manifest as fear of the unknown (=the EU). At this point, these people become against everything in EU: whatever new things are proposed from the EU side, it is somehow "lousy", "bad", "failing", "won't work anyway", and so forth. Any EU company has "bottom-barrel products" and "can't succeed", euro cannot work between countries, Europe is "weak" and "gay" and "collapsing".
Also, some people look at an individual member state and confuse it with the whole EU. For example, the nuclear power stance of Germany is seen as an EU-mandated position and then the whole EU is seen to be against nuclear power. This can also work in reverse: Poland sends generators to Ukraine, well done Poland and why is the weak and failing EU doing nothing (except the generators were from RescEU stores, and one such store was located in Poland, so EU was sending them).
When people understand what the EU is and know the basics, of course they might still disagree with things, that's normal, but at least the arguments are more factual.
Yeah, I don't get why Hungary is doing this. Just do like Italy, Grece, Romania, Croatia, etc do, and waive those migrants though, since they'll all go to places like Austria, Belgium, Germany, Sweden, etc, they won't stay in Hungary anyway, and this way you still get to cash those EU cheques and migration becomes someone else's problem. Malicious compliance FTW. If the holier-than-thou EU want no border checks, then fine, let them enjoy it. Hope EU leaders also have no locked doors or security at their place of living in Brussels to match the openness and inclusivity towards unvetted strangers of their border policies. Otherwise it's just hypocrisy.
EU didn't fight UK. UK fought EU to not lose their exorbitantly privileged status and benefits while leaving the club itself. They wanted to have their cake and eat it too. When they realized and decided that they will get none of the benefits, the finalization of the exit took merely weeks. EU is a huge privilege / opportunity for smaller countries. EU-6 doesn't need the other ones to be the second biggest market. If Hungarians want out, it can be done by the end of 2026 and you can enjoy being a proper vassal to neo-Soviets by 2027.
>EU-6 doesn't need the other ones to be the second biggest market.
That's where you're wrong. Where would German industry be today without the labor, suppliers, export market and cheap energy imports from the other non-EU-6 members? Especially after they denuclearized and derussified their energy sector and nuked their birthrates, and so rely on importing energy and workers from everyone to stay afloat. You can't claim you don't need them while you're importing their energy, labor, resources, doctors, etc. You can't treat your country like an economic zone, while ignoring all the economic transactions.
Germany had its biggest boom when there was no Schengen agreement. Most of the German labor came from Turkey, not from the smaller and less developed EU countries. Its immigration policy was targetted and more selective even. Germany doesn't import much energy from less developed EU countries either: https://www.iea.org/countries/germany/energy-mix#where-does-... most of them come from EU-6 and UK which makes sense since those countries have technology and resources to produce extra capacity. It's the same deal with France with its former and current colonies. They truly do not need to be in a union with the less developed countries to get those benefits. Same for Canada, Canada doesn't need to enter a union with a less developed country to get lots of immigration.
I'm not saying that Germany (or other EU-6) doesn't need immigration. I'm an immigrant in Germany and I do support it for qualified and even non-qualified jobs. However, it is not a clear cut benefit to be in a union with emigrant source countries either.
The current setup of EU is a toxic relationship for both sides though, it is a benevolent colonization setup. Allowing smaller post-Soviet countries without significantly investing and improving their economies and industries and their political stability before ascension, ended up very badly for the other ones. EU-6 siphoned out all the labor, younger population and educated classes of post-Soviet countries, so now their populations are mostly old, resented people, the biggest businesses owned by EU-6 for only cheap labor. Those populations are really susceptible to authoritarian overtakes and the authoritarian governments like Hungary and Slovakia of today and Poland of past can block significant decisions with the veto right.
EU is very beneficial for smaller countries however at a significant cost for both sides in a bad way. It worked best when the candidate / new member nation was already a significantly developed and industrialized part of Soviet Union like Baltics or Poland (for the most part, they are not 100% clear yet).
>Germany had its biggest boom when there was no Schengen agreement.
I'm talking about the state of the German economy of today, how it's deeply tied to non-Eu-6 countries in a big way. Their past economic success of a lone wolf, is irrelevant today when they're struggling. Different times. China wasn't even on the radar as a competitor back then and German cars were all the rave worldwide back then. Times have changed.
> Its immigration policy was targetted and more selective even.
So why doesn't it want to be as selective anymore today? You know, like back their economic boom days you mentioned before.
>They truly do not need to be in a union with the less developed countries to get those benefits.
Then what's the point of the EU if they can get everything they need without a union? Why doesn't Germany and France just leave the EU and take their money with them?
Because you only focus on the argument of the German EU integration being all about importing cheap labor with your argument, but my argument is beyond that. For example, countless suppliers to Germany economy are in Poland, Romania, Slovakia, etc. And such trade and IP collaboration NEEDS an union. Same for defence parts for French companies that are now made in post-communist countries.
>The current setup of EU is a toxic relationship for both sides though, it is a benevolent colonization setup.
It wasn't always like that though. Only in the last 10 or so years did the EU start to be authoritarian towards member states.
>EU-6 siphoned out all the labor, younger population and educated classes of post-Soviet countries
True, but guess what, for the first time ever, more post-Communist EU migrants are now leaving Germany and returning home, than the number migrating to Germany from post-Communist members. Reasons are many, but it seems like the days of Germany (and others) being the lands of milk and honey are over.
>Those populations are really susceptible to authoritarian overtakes
And German population ISN'T?! They just prefer a different flavor of authoritarianism, one with nicer PR, where the jackboots are eco friendly, as they take you to court for "hateful" Tweets, stuff that doesn't happen in the post-Communist states.
>authoritarian governments like Hungary and Slovakia of today and Poland
Why are they considered authoritarian? Because they do what their voters want and not what the EU wants?
>can block significant decisions with the veto right.
Good? Shouldn't nations be able to have a say themselves from EU decisions that might negatively impact them?
I didn't hear many people calling the Austrian regime autocratic for constantly vetoing Romania and Bulgaria's Schengen memberships, despite those countries having met the criterias long before.
So the "autocratic" label keeps being applied very inconsistently across the EU. Dare I say hypocritical.
The EU will fight you? If Texas tried to secede from the US, the government would send in the military. The EU "fought" them by not giving them a sweetheart trade deal on their way out the door?
It was super easy for UK to leave EU? No one tried to stop them. The ”hard” part was that they wanted to keep some benefits of the membership after canceling the membership.
That is incorrect. Leaving EU is super easy. Leaving written accords with USA is hard, and that's what UK tried to pull off. Since the oligarchs pushing for EU exit to hide their black money were dumb, they forgot they have an agreement with USA making a UK-Ireland border transparent. And they basically spent 4 years trying to either tear down a USA deal or EU law, without having any leverage for either, since they are dumb. Since there no such things in other EU countries, their leave can happen much faster.
Of course leaving the EU is hard. Membership has a significant effect on regulation and governance. The fact that something is hard also doesn’t mean you aren’t free to do it.
It being “fought” or countries being “penalised” is a matter of opinion but not one I share.
I'm actually quite surprised by the number of people who have fallen for this. There aren't even any concrete claims here – just the vague assertion that some things are "impossible".
Other than that, I find this whole thing mostly very saddening. Not because some company used my diagram. As I said, it's been everywhere for 15 years and I've always been fine with that. What's dispiriting is the (lack of) process and care: take someone's carefully crafted work, run it through a machine to wash off the fingerprints, and ship it as your own. This isn't a case of being inspired by something and building on it. It's the opposite of that. It's taking something that worked and making it worse. Is there even a goal here beyond "generating content"?
I mean come on – the point literally could not be more clearly expressed.
It's a genuinely surprising feeling to live in a place, but see an absolute torrent of malevolent misinformation about it.
The "London has fallen" trope that has been prevalent on social media recently stank of some kind of deliberate manipulation. But increasingly—in part due to stories like this—I wonder if it is actually just all "for the views".
For what it's worth living in NYC often feels the same. There are people who live on Long Island - many just an hour or so from the city - who are convinced it's a hellscape here.
Even people with children who live in the city are somehow able to tolerate the cognitive dissonance of hearing their children talk about the lives they lead while also believing the city is crime-ridden and dangerous.
Also the US politicians suffering from Khan Derangement Syndrome. He really is one of the most anodyne politicians around, obviously no one is genuinely upset about him.
It's definitely being pushed by people looking for views but there is obviously some truth to it when half the businesses around Leicester Square are completely empty frauds.
No, there is not “obviously some truth to it”. There are any number of actual problems with London, including but not limited to a lack of enforcement against obvious frauds, and none of which are the related to the topic being discussed.
I've lived in both places and I think the narrative is a lot more fair, in terms of day-to-day quality of life for, like, the median resident, about San Francisco than it is about Chicago. The narrative about Chicago basically doesn't connect with anybody's experience here unless they live in places like Lawndale or Englewood. San Francisco's problems are broadly shared by every neighborhood.
my neighborhood here (excelsior district) is more or less like a more packed in version of where i grew up (south oak park). Comparing living anywhere in SF to living in Lanwdale or Englewood is absolutely wild, outside of some very isolated neighborhoods.
There is some confusion here because while you can disable node key expiration, you can’t disable auth key expiration. But that’s less of a problem than it seems - auth keys are only useful for adding new nodes, so long expiry times are probably not necessary outside of some specific use-cases.
Edit: in fact from your original post it sounds like you’re trying to avoid re-issuing auth keys to embedded devices. You don’t need to do this; auth keys should ideally be single-use and are only required to add the node to the network. Once the device is registered, it does not need them any more - there is a per-device key. You can then choose to disable key expiration for that device.
I want my CI containers created per branch/PR to have their own Tailscale domain, so logging them in is useful via non-expiring key. Only good option I've seen previously is to notify every 90 days when key expires.
The best way to do that is using an OAuth client. These don't expire, and grant scoped access to the Tailscale API. You use this to generate access keys for the devices that need to authenticate to the network.
We use this for debugging access to CI builds, among other things – when a particular build parameter is set, then the CI build will use an OAuth key to request an ephemeral, single-use access key from the Tailscale API, then use that to create a node that engineers can SSH into.
When managing your infrastructure as code, it’s quite common to deploy new instances for upgrades etc. Having these keys expire after 3 months is a big pain. Eg doing a routine update by rebuilding an AMI.
I don’t understand how they can have such a strategy, and then not having any decent way to programmatically allocate new keys.
This can all be automated using e.g. the Terraform Tailscale provider, which takes the OAuth id/secret and can then issue keys as needed for the infrastructure you are deploying.
This is true up until the point that someone finds a security issue with an image parser that’s present in a browser engine, and suddenly you have an RCE.
If you have access to an exploit and want to compromise someone with an image, you'd usually just send it to them directly via e-mail or SMS or AirDrop or whatever, or all of the above. And it'll even work if your image is linked in an email via HTTPS.
Trying to MITM an existing tracker pixel when they're connected to public WiFi sounds like practically the hardest way to do it.
The harder it is to do, the more the targets guard will be down
In this case, sending your malicious image through a fake email might get flagged, or even not opened by someone whos been trained in infosec enough to be suspicious of these things. But a tracking pixel in an email that is verifiably from a trusted entity will be opened no problem. Type of thing that will look pretty slick if you read about it being used
It's incredibly easy to get people to open emails. This isn't asking them to download an attached .zip or .exe file or follow a suspicious link, which is what people are trained against. This is just an embedded image.
Some people are happy to release code openly and have it used for anything, commercial or otherwise. Totally understandable and a valid choice to make.
Other people are happy to release code openly so long as people who incorporate it into their projects also release it in the same way. Again, totally understandable and valid.
None of this is hard to understand or confusing or even slightly weird.
A total of 205 participants were randomly assigned to receive oral semaglutide, and 102 to receive placebo. The estimated mean change in body weight from baseline to week 64 was -13.6% in the oral semaglutide group and -2.2% in the placebo group (estimated difference, -11.4 percentage points; 95% confidence interval, -13.9 to -9.0; P<0.001).
At what would be $10/day – why's that ineffective?
Because if you compare it to the injection trial, you'll see even higher weight loss, and even lower side effects. We're also producing 25mg of oral medication for the same effectiveness as 2.4mg of injection; that doesn't make economic sense.
reply