I need to know, how that question was phrased, otherwise that 40% number is completly meaningless. The two extremes would be “Do you think a woman has ever lied about domestic and sexual violence?”, or “Do you think all reports by a woman of domestic and sexual violence are a lie?”. In the first case a significant share would answer yes, because a single false claim ever makes that statement correct. The opposite is true for the second phrasing, where a single correct claim makes that statement false. The real phrasing is probably somewhere in between, but even then you could heavily influence the outcome with subtle changes to the phrasing.

Doesn’t that baby have birthright citizenship, being born in the US?

Of those states, all but the UK and Norway are EU member states and Norway is a member of the EEA, so its practically impossible to single them out with tariffs. Trump should really understand this by now, as it isn’t the first time he tries to single out EU/EEA members with his tariffs.

The EU doesn’t have a president that can make such decisions on a whim and that’s a good thing. Instead this needs to be discussed and voted on in the parliament and for what it’s worth, they seem to be moving extremely fast

The real issue is that they pulled Windows 10. When Vista was shit, you could use XP until 7 was released, when 8 was shit, you could use 7 until 10 was released. Now 11 is the only supported version and you have no choice if you’re for some reason stuck with Windows.

Windows 11 was released 4 years ago and you still can’t move the task bar to a different edge of the screen. If Microsoft can’t implement simple feature of a core part of Windows in 4 years they most certainly can’t replace their entire C/C++ codebase in 5 years

That’s exactly why they appeal to them

Yeah, makes sense from his perspective. If they were individual small countries, he could strong arm them and play them against each other. But unified they are a threat to his power

Possibly, but there was a major cloudflare outage today that probably caused it.

Time zones are fine as they are. They are less confusing than having 23:00 be close to midnight in one place, early morning in another and noon in another place. It would also result in many places either changing the date at random times or having a different date in the morning and in the evening.

I don’t think that’s specific to the US but propaganda pushed by the (far) right in many places.

Is this even legal in the EU? The majority of phones in the EU are Android phones so this effectively gives Google control over what apps can be installed to the majority of phones. I thought the Digital Markets Act was designed to prevent exactly this.

Because they are part of the European Broadcast Union (EBU), just like other non-European countries including Egypt, Morocco, Tunisia and Georgia. That said, just like Russia, their membership should be suspended.

I’m completely fine with non-European countries participating. Australia (the one with the kangaroos) isn’t even an EBU member, but has been participating in the Eurovision for the last ten years and I think it’s great to see the world grow closer like that.

I wouldn’t say it’s bad for democracy. If anything, it reveals how damaged democracy already is in the US. At face value this isn’t any worse than students being murdered in school shootings or (democrat) politicians being murdered. Don’t get me wrong, that’s all terrible but reacting only to this event reveals that the MAGAs were only waiting for any excuse to do whatever they’re going to do now.

E-fuels are specifically allowed by the EU law. This was added at the last second due to lobbying from Germany and the German car lobby. Another option would be hydrogen engines. So yes, it is absolutely possible to build and sell new ICE cars after 2035 but they’re unlikely to be successful because of the high expected fuel costs.

Right now, depending on where you live, a more or less significant part of the electricity you charge EVs with is not emission free, that’s true. But there are two major advantages: EVs work with emission free electricity just the same as with emissive electricity. So once more or eventually all of the electricity becomes emission free, which is actively being worked on, the car would automatically become emission free. And secondly, you can control where the emissions happen. Especially in cities carbon and nitrous emissions from ICE cars significantly affect the air quality. Even if the electricity for an EV was produced in the most polluting way possible, that pollution would be located at the power plant and could be controlled or mitigated there.

EVs are actually particularly attractive with a higher portion of renewables in the electricity mix. With renewables you can’t control when the peak power production happens. But if you have EVs and their battery capacity in the grid, you could use these peaks of power production to charge the EVs instead of letting it go to waste.

We should really start emphasising that there is no blanket ban on combustion engines planned but an emissions ban. If the car manufacturers wanted to and found it feasible, they’re free to build emission free combustion engines. Every time they call it a combustion engine ban is an admission that they can’t or at least won’t build better engines.

From that chart Qobuz seems to be the all round best deal. Is there any catch?

If lab grown meat becomes readily available and reasonably cheap, that may become a reasonable argument.

Yes, because just because you bought a book you don’t own its content. You’re not allowed to print and/or sell additional copies or publicly post the entire text. Generally it’s difficult to say where the limit is of what’s allowed. Citing a single sentence in a public posting is most likely fine, citing an entire paragraph is probably fine, too, but an entire chapter would probably be pushing it too far. And when in doubt a judge must decide how far you can go before infringing copyright. There are good arguments to be made that just buying a book doesn’t grant the right to train commercial AI models with it.

My best guess is Russia tries to make their death toll appear as small as possible. If they take the bodies back, those soldiers are confirmed dead but if they don’t take them back, they can pretend, for some time at least, that those soldiers are MiA or PoWs.