thebestaquaman

I get why you would say this, but it's an oversimplification to the point of being completely wrong.

Fossil fuels have an absurd energy density. They're just really hard to beat. Modern batteries and liquid hydrogen don't even come close. Pair that with the fact that we've spent a couple hundred years optimising the steam- and internal combustion engines, compared to some decades (in practice) for electric-based stuff, and you start seeing why fossil fuels are so hard to push of the top of the hill.

Until very recently all alternatives were pretty much worse under every conceivable performance metric. There's a reason electric planes are still in the prototype phase. It's just technically really really hard to even get close to jet fuel and combustion engines.

Oh, I definitely meant far future. While the differences are far too big today, I can see gradually increasing cooperation between e.g. the EU and African Union at some point culminating in the construction of a governmental body that has some regulatory power over them both.

Once such a body exists, I can imagine that it over time accumulates power, bringing the two unions even closer together. The EU started out as a relatively small organ, and has grown gradually to what it is today over many decades. My point was that if some "global government" ever forms, I think that kind of gradual process is how it will happen. Starting out with trade agreements, and then gradually regulating more aspects of government.

These don't need to be mutually exclusive though. A lot of the progress in Europe the past 80 years is a result of the improved cooperation brought by the EU.

The EU isn't like the UN, where everyone is equally represented (sans veto powers), but is a democratically elected super-national body with opposing super-national political factions. I can see a concept like that working on a global scale some time in the (relatively far) future.

I think something like this is the most reasonable, and we're already closer to it than at any previous point in history. We have the EU, the African Union (AU), and I think there's a South American union as well (?) there's also the US, which is a bit between a union and a single state (US states have more autonomy than regional municipalities most other places, but far less than any full-fledged county).

I think that if a "global government" ever develops, it will be due to these unions forming an overarching union. The major hurdle is that we're a very far way off anybody wanting to concede any governing power to an organisation above the "continental union" level. Even holding the EU together is non-trivial, because a lot of people feel that too much power is concentrated far away in Brussels.

Regarding judicial systems and military forces, the UN has showed that it's possible to have a kind of global system for this, but it's still a far stretch from anything that could be called a "global judicial system with enforcement powers".

The majority of Germans in the late 1930's weren't members of the Nazi party either. The majority of Germans in fact claimed being either unaware or opposed to what the Nazi regime did. Did the tell the truth? I'm inclined to believe so. Does being unaware/laying low absolve them of any and all crimes committed by the Nazi government? That's more of an open question.

Actively voting for a government that commits crimes because you don't care sufficiently about politics does not absolve you of responsibility for those crimes. Once you actively enable a fascist government you are complicit in the crimes it commits.

Of course, I'll speak English in meetings and other settings where we're talking about work and need to minimise the language barrier for practical purposes. I'll also speak English in a lot of social settings, because these are nice people that I enjoy talking to.

What I'm talking about is the silent expectation that a group of Norwegians talking at the lunch table should switch to English if one or more non-Norwegian speakers enter the room. I don't like that silent expectation, and really appreciate the colleagues that learn Norwegian well enough that I can just keep the conversation going without feeling like I'm excluding them or feeling that I need to swap to English and fill them in on what we're talking about.

I don't think it really makes a difference, as long as you're staying somewhere for any significant amount of time (i.e. months) it makes sense to start learning the language.

I mean, it's common courtesy to try to learn enough of the local language to buy stuff and ask for directions when your just on vacation.

I was in Germany for half a year during my studies. To me it was obvious that I needed to learn the language from day one, because I had no intent of going around and expecting everyone else to adjust to me not knowing the language. I have a very hard time understanding how someone could move to a country for years, and still not learn the language because "it's not permanent".

I also work in a very international community, with a small minority Norwegians (in Norway). While we often communicate in English, I have to admit that I find it a bit strange that people choose to move to Norway and work in Norway, but don't learn the language well enough to participate in a conversation at the lunch table.

Sure, often we'll swap to English if a non-Norwegian speaker comes in, but sometimes I'm just tired and don't want to bother with the extra effort. I massively appreciate the colleagues that bother to learn Norwegian.

The fundamental difference to me, which makes me not see "a website with extensive docs and a download button" as marketing, is whether you need to seek it out or not.

If I need to seek it out myself, it's not marketing, it's simply "providing solid information" and "making your product accessible", which is a whole different ballgame from "shoving your shit into peoples face in the hope that they'll give you money".

I think there's a substantial difference between "supplying information about a product without shoving it in people's face", and what most people associate with "marketing".

If a company putting up neutral, verifiable information about their product on their own webpage where I can find it by searching for something I'm looking for after reflexively scrolling past the ads counts as marketing, then yes, I "fall for marketing" all the time. However, what I typically associate with "marketing" involves me somehow being fed information about a product without seeking it out. Usually when that happens, I'll actively look somewhere else.

Ref. the famous Ken Thompson hack. At some point you're forced to trust someone.

"Not a marketing company" as in their business model is not centred around shoving ads in your face for money is how I read it.