So the drawback of that law is that it is not explicitly/automatically enforced. One has to bring it up with the authorities themselves basically. So if you don’t notice somebody taking a picture and/or distributing it. Nothing happens automatically.
That is a law in Germany. You have the right to your image, be it photographic or video graphic. There are some exceptions like being in a crowd (i.e. unrecognisable).
That means if a newspaper has you in it. They must remove you or make you unrecognisable. And if somebody is taking a video or picture of you, they have to delete it if you ask and are technically not allowed to do so in the first place.
And believe me Germans do make use of that right.
Does anyone know what happened in March/April or is this just a sampling issue?
I mean why would it not be the aristocrat? Down with the nobility! I feel like the goblin dude is only going for his own species going by his description.
Also aren’t whale carcasses also prone to explosion due to the pressure caused by the decay?
Yes a bit more actually. I answered in more detail to another comment in this thread. Also like another comment said the reporting on it all is a bit nebulous, too.
Everyone is ignorant in some way though, you cannot know it all.
The full story is that before the Battle of Marathon, Pheidippides ran around 240 km to Sparta to ask for aid in the upcoming battle and then back to bring their message. He then fought a probably exhaustive battle and then ran to Athens (if I am not mistaken) to tell them of the victory, adding ~ 42 km more.
So in total he ran around 524 km. Not sure in what time exactly, but I assume he wasn’t tardy. Then he died of exhaustion.
By the way, the run to Sparta is, since a few RAF officers did it after WW2, now also a race and your name gets put on a slab of rock somewhere.
Doubt that many people do. He ran 480 km, participated in the battle of Marathon and then ran ~42 km after and died.
I wouldn’t say it is identical. Nuclear is far easier to solve. The waste is really not that impactful in comparison to climate change
I wasn’t talking about building new ones. I agree with that. But the ones that already exist shouldn’t be shut down until they are replaced by renewables.
Even if this were true, would that be important nowadays? If it can push out climate change and make it into a problem to solve later (in case of fission). Fusion would be great though
Online chess notation for move precision. !! brilliant, book is literature move, thumbs up an checkmark are good moves, star very good, roughly.
Astrophysicist here, I think you’d enjoy reading about the Hill Sphere and Roche limit. Not quite what you are asking for but comes close.
Oh shit, my bad. I thought one-wing bomber. This us a flying fortress, no? Put an edit on my original comment.
Thanks for the correction
Also one-wings are notoriously hard to fly and B-52’s are actively supporting the pilot (via computers) to even make it operational for a human, if I don’t misremember. So maybe that failed?
Having passive assistance that couldn’t fail would actually be a great thing an bring one-wing designs into the commercial aviation.
Edit: I was mistakenly speaking about a (rather) modern bomber B2. Mistook it for the B-52, which isn’t a one-wing and built not long after the second world war.
I am not telling you what to believe and that was not my intention, if that seemed to be the case then I am sorry. Although, regardless of what you believe, it seemed like you 100 % believed the article and argued for it (and against other commenters). Your approach was too direct then I guess, I also misunderstood your intention.
In comments/writing it is/can be really hard to be nuanced. As seen from our above misunderstanding even. I guess starting of your comment with something alike “The article seems to contradict your statement in these points… What do you make of this?” Would have made your openness to discuss clear right away. Otherwise it came of as directly opposing.
For this case specifically? I would have not commented without watching the video as well. And, again, if you don’t want to, completely fine, but then you are missing vital information in this case. Not having done so, and only having relied on the article as your only source, does mean you did 100% and thus blindly trust it, though, by definition.
That aside, pointing out differences is, generally, fine as you did it - I think. Also remember that on the internet sometimes you get downvoted randomly and even for saying true things. Has happend to me, believe me.
Edit: in my opinion it is always best to take everything, also people tell you with a grain of salt. Especially if you hear contrary information. Don’t go, “I read it like this in an article and they said this, they must be wrong”, but approach it more like “oh, maybe I haven’t got the full picture or I am wrong, or they are wrong, but I don’t know yet.”
I would say it is less a social faux pas and more so a case of not applying scientific method/using the internet wrong.
You have an article of some sort, you also have a video that shows the ocurrance from three different viewpoints (I.e. recordings of ppl.).
However, you didn’t verify the article, blindly trusted it, and used it right away to criticise somebody else’s statements.
You don’t have to watch the video if you don’t want, but then you shouldn’t either make statements you cannot be entirely sure of.
This also does not only apply to this case, but generally. Everyone can write a book, Wikipedia article, article, etc. Best case is either checking the base source or multiple sources to see if they agree or something that has been reviewed by multiple ppl./experts. Otherwise, never trust it fully. Also don’t trust any LLM unless you do the same. Latter is a side note.
Edit: also, I am not saying you are entirely wrong with your statements, as I cannot verify them myself; I don’t speak Portuguese. Alas, most of the people think you are (also by itself not entirely reliable) and it does indeed from the video seem like both the article and you are wrong.
Wouldn’t it be fairer to just drop capitalism and have a society not based on wealth?
I can see a few cases immediately where your system would remain unfair or unviable.
Covers publishing, re-distributing and taking of pictures (the latter as I hinted at before has some limitations)