You can if the company is a non-profit like open AI. Basically when you take on investments for a company you declare what the goal/purpose of a company is, either to make money (for profit) or for some other nebulous cause (non-profit) eg. Ending hunger or saving humanity from AI. If an investor thinks you aren’t following that goal and are pursuing some other goal then they can sue the company.

Sadly most companies are for profit so they can only be sued if they’re trying to do something that doesn’t optimally make money. So a fossil fuel company can’t be sued for legally dumping poison into the air if it’s the most cost efficient method, but they can be sued if they do a less cost efficient solution that would make air quality better because improving people’s health isnt there goal, making money is.

You can disagree with Maduro and his autocratic actions without supporting sanctions that mostly harm the civilian population.

Not if you make the watermark part of the output itself

the primary motivation behind this decision was. Obviously it wasn’t building public housing

That doesn’t mean the intent behind the CCP policy isn’t good, well intentioned, or positive

Can you see how I’m confused, do you think the primary intent is for public housing, or for some political drama?

It could be some political drama, we’ll never know what goes on in the HK city council, but if you read the article you’ll see this site wasn’t selected so much as it’s lease was up and the city would be taking back control of it and they needed to do something with it. Yeah some high official could’ve been waiting for the course to come back into city hands so they could build public housing over it and snub a rival, but I think it’s far more likely that the property fell into the cities hands and they decided to turn it into affordable housing because that’s what the city needs, no sinister or alterior motive is needed.

the CCP can’t possibly do something in the interests of the people, their must be something dastardly behind this.

Your just as bad as the tankies who think u.s. aid is just a CIA front, or the Republicans who think welfare is just Democrats keeping black people poor and dependent.

The u.s government and CCP aren’t just full of villains trying to oppress people, both have the capacity for empathy and compassion and do exercise it often.

Western nations give into terrorist demands going back to the French revolution. Some of those demands were for the freedom of speech that is being trampled on here or other rights and protections we hold dear. For recent examples look at the troubles or even that guy who shot shinzo abe and got the moonies out of Japan.

The focus shouldn’t just be on the means for political change, though the means can be criticized, but the political change itself. Banning book burnings in this case is an afront to free speech and should not be implemented.

It does, it just favors the dominant ethno-religous complex. Much of the western proffesional dress code has basis in christian ideals of modesty. These cultural signifiers don’t occur to us though as they’re so normalized. If you came to work dressed like Angela from the office you wouldn’t be cited because the dress code was written with that attire in mind and people view it as normal. You’ll be cited if you violate those ideas of modesty, eg. Showing midriff, or having different views on modesty, eg. A head scarf.

If you want to say it’s completely neutral you’ll have to exorcise all christian biases and assumptions from western culture, which they dont seem to be doing here.

It’s for rental scooters, not all scooters. My guess is two reasons:

1. They’re left everywhere and can hog probably already crowded Paris sidewalks and bike racks.
2. They’re mostly used by inexperienced people who don’t know what they’re doing and will ride on sidewalks with little regard for pedestrians, especially in Paris with the large amount of tourists, who the parisians already hate.

The sticking point for diplomacy is not the annexed lands but the right to return. Arafat would’ve accepted most of the border changes, except the ones in east Jerusalem, and maybe even Hamas would. But Israel will not accept a deal with the right to return, as it would change the demographics so much as to make Jewish democracy nearly impossible. Palestinians won’t accept a deal without it as so many are still cramped in refugee camps looking to return. Combine that with the fact that Israel has almost all the power and therefore no reason to negotiate and the idea of a diplomatic solution without heavy outside pressure is impossible

There aren’t any non-violent solutions that would make any impact, Israel has made sure of that. Protests in Israel and Palestine are suppressed and ignored by the increasingly far right Israeli state. Protests in the west are dismissed as anti-semitism and both parties continue to send aid. Boycott divestment and sanctions have been made illegal. Every vote in the u.n. or attempt to try the Israeli government on human rights abuses is vetoed by the u.s.

If you want to see what happens when they give up on violence look at the west bank. Fatah has long ceded military control to Israel and have they been rewarded with any degree of autonomy or rights for Palestinians? No just continual encroachment and violence from settlers and the IDF.

things were happening that seemed like the whole thing could come to a resolution without hamas being involved.

This is utter fantasy. There was/is a growing movement on the left in the west recognizing the abuses of the Israeli regime but that movement was very marginal and would probably remain so in the near future. The governments and ruling elites in the west still overwhelmingly supported Israel and were willing to turn a blind eye to the abuses, even as they have increased under the new far right government that came to power recently. Even the Arab countries that previously championed the Palestinian cause were defecting.

The trajectory of this conflict before Oct 7th was a slow legalistic ethnic cleansing in the west bank backed unquestioningly by the United States. A few more leftists might protest it in the U.S. but they are fundamentally impotent against the inertia of the current system as a majority of the people don’t know or care about Palestine. Doesn’t matter if a tweet calling Israel an apartheid state gets millions of likes if the U.S. Congress still votes 430 to 5 for aid to Israel every time it comes up.

The Palestinian cause needed something to keep it relevant and shake up the status quo that was slowly killing it. Oct 7th was probably one of the worst ways to do it, but at least more people know about how horrible the system is.

That’s asymmetric warfare for you, if hamas operated like Israel and had bases out in the open they’d be annihilated in a week. Israel would probably do the same if hamas had overwhelming air superiority.

Most Palestinians don’t support Hamas but most do support armed resistance, mostly because every other form of resistance has been taken away from them. That’s why they were voted in in 2006, and if Israel does succeed then whoever takes over after will probably just as militant, unless Israel gives them some other way to effectively protest mosque raids and west bank settlements.

Both can be true, they can hate the rocket attacks and the government that keeps poking the hornets nest making sure the rockets continue.

Nah, your thinking of nationalism. WWI and WWII had very little to do with religion but in terms of body count far exceed the likes of the crusades. If you ask your average soldier throughout history why they’re doing what they’re doing patriotism will come up more often than God. Naked self interest would probably be the actual top reason but people don’t usually say the quiet part aloud.

The surest way to minimize civilian casualties is to not drop any bombs.

The incursion has been withdrawn, the threat has been contained as much as it can be. Any bombing now is pure retaliation. Any disablement of Hamas strength won by this will be only temporary and will be restored in a few years with more anger, all at the cost of civilian lives.

If Israel truly only cares about protecting Israeli lives, they’d establish a line, start rebuilding the fence with better surveillance and start negotiating for the release of the hostages.

Their regional rival Saudi Arabia is in talks with Israel to make an alliance with them and the u.s. in exchange for military aid. With recent events they now have to either

1. Give up on the alliance and the military aid and getting all the latest in military tech.
2. Continue forth with the alliance and make themselves look like a bootlicking puppet of the u.s. in front of the entire Arab world.

The original post was about Europe, that’s the European average. Even the E.U. average is 30% and that doesn’t include turkey and some of the Balkans. Also the point still stands even for the best example of Luxembourg at 46%, it’s still less than half. Most people in Europe do not have a bachelors.

Moreover, it ignores that most reductions are taking place in countries with the highest per capita carbon emissions

Yes but those are also the countries with stagnating or decreasing emissions per capita, while the ones with rising emissions are also increasing in population. These compounding factors can cancel each other out when looking at net emissions.

Let’s say right now we have 10 people from the u.s. emitting 10 tonnes of co2 and 10 people from the developing work emitting 1 tonne of co2, for a total of 110 tonnes of co2.

Now let’s say in 50 years we now have 8 people in the u.s. emitting 8 tonnes of co2 and 12 people in the developing world emitting 5 tonnes of co2 for a total of 124 tonnes of co2.

This isn’t to let western countries and their lifestyles off the hook, or that developing countries don’t have a right to increase their standard of living like the west did, just saying populations stagnating or decreasing won’t necessarily help climate change.

most of them have bachelors

Only 30% of people in Europe have bachelors degrees, about the same as the u.s. Thats higher than in developing countries, say India at 8%, but a majority of people in both countries don’t have degrees.

It’s a common misconception by those with tertiary education in the first world that everyone else has tertiary education because they only talk to people in their social class with tertiary education.

Are you against those taxes then, cause the premise sounds fair. Cars are dangerous and pollute a lot, whether they’re in the countryside or in the city.

They’re also expensive, especially older ones that you have to repair constantly. Seems you’ll do more good for the poor in the countryside making the public transit better than getting rid of the tax. You know, direct your energy into something positive like sustainable public transit, instead of a technology that’s slowly killing us.