Yeah, and personally, I don't feel any wish to go back to skeuomorphism. It is funny to look back to and feel some nostalgia, but I think it would look cheap now if they did it like 15 years ago. Maybe iOS' glassy-ui will create some elements that people like about it, but they luckily did not move back to busy ui element backgrounds.
I do partially agree with his buttons and app-points. I dislike how we are forced to download apps for everything, including the questionable tracking software.
The Chinese too know how to make unnecessary large cars, unfortunately.
This is not only on the far-right, but generally on the right spectrum. The People's Party is more interested in businesses than actually caring for the environment we live in. This could be seen by the name of the 'Ministry of Climate and Green Growth'. Apart that generally very little is accomplished by this government, I can't really remember Hermans having any meaningful proposals or implementations, except for scraping those things that were in-place or halting discussions with large corporations on their efforts on sustainability.
The Farmer's Party has a complete neglect for any climate issues, and, my sense, is that New Social Contract cares less about climate than the People's Party. And all three of them seem to be willing to give in to Wilders on this front.
I agree that both their objective lies in changing regulation. Doesn't mean that they are the same, however. Which OP stated. And I wouldn't say it is the only difference, rather the difference between the two.
If there is proof that they have given millions of dollars, this will go to court, as that is illegal. Lobbying is not bribing as I pointed out in my initial reply. Lots of different groups and organisations use lobbying to make their concerns heard. Just because this is a case we don't like, does not mean lobbying has no purpose.
They are literally not the same. Bribing is when you try to give something in exchange for voting/law making etc. Lobbying is convincing why prioritising is important. These can be selfish reasons, like in this case. However, lobbying may also be done for noble causes by a wide range of NGOs. Prohibiting lobbying is limiting the opportunity for all kinds of actors to argue their cause.
I wish this article could actually explain some of the changes. This is quite a large time frame (‘06-‘23) and while the European migration might be explained by EU enlargement, I wonder if the demographic share from African countries has changed, or whether education systems have overall improved (more people having some form of education).
Isn’t Fox News sort of the Onion, though?
Wine/champagne grapes are farmed in Europe, but I think it is sad for the workers, no matter they are situated in Europe or elsewhere. Maybe even worse if it is in sweatshops, because they may not rely on state support.
While at the same time cutting foreign aid…
While I couldn’t care less about the products, I am afraid the workers will suffer too.
I think a major issue in moving away from US big tech is how corporations and governments have created a vicious circle on the reliance on them. They won't move away because they are more polished and feature rich than (European) alternatives, as well as their employees are accustomed to them. Because they keep spending money on big tech, big tech will have the finance to stay ahead and keep on polishing and adding features. They will keep repeating these arguments, while competitors to big tech will never receive enough finance to create a one-for-one alternative. Employees will also not get to use any other software and may only get deeper ties with big tech's 'ecosystems'.
While I believe individuals should move to alternatives, I doubt this will happen without governments investing in open alternatives, and corporations starting to pay for their services. That way alternatives become viable options for the layperson.