Tuukka R @ Tuuktuuk @piefed.ee

A human being from a Finland.

---

Read more

Posts

3

Comments

142

Joined

1 wk. ago

Moderating

---

I had to google the Dead Sea Effect: it means that when a workplace has a bad culture, the most skilled and ambitious workers are first to leave and those who have a habit to do the minimum will remain.

Anyway, I'd say this effect is weaker in this situation, because many workers are there truly to serve their country, not merely as "generic workers". They might feel that they have something important to contribute to the society, which means there's an actual chance for even some of the best to return.

A container container container? Obviously, the planet Earth is a container for the oceans.

Or, to be more specific, a container container.

(Yeah. Just let the buffalo buffalo. Whatever.)

You still can ;)

It also contains containers!

Actually it's Euros to a barrel.

It does take a while to join all the communities you were subscribed to from your old instance, but I don't think it took close to an hour. Of course, my new instance accepting my application did take its time. And I think that was several hours. But still: You give a few details today and continue tomorrow by subscribing to a bunch of communities.

I mostly agree with your comment, but want to nitpick about this part:

Fediverse is what it is because the people running the servers choose to do things a certain way.

This one is something I must disagree with. I'm using the instances (servers) I am precisely because the people running those servers choose to do things in a certain way. If they did them in a different way, I would be on a different server. In the Fediverse it is extremely easy to vote with your feet. The admins have very free reign over their instances, but that doesn't mean that they have a free reign over the users of their instances.

And, while this is a bit off-topic, I also want to add an anecdote from around year 1998 or so. Back when they decided the name for our currency, Euro, the European Central Bank also decided that when speaking or writing in Finnish, it should be forbidden to say "For the Euro", "From the Euro", "Along the Euro", "Behind the Euro", "Without the Euro" or any sentence that includes both the word for "no" in connection with the word "Euro".

Of course it didn't mean to make such an absurd rule.

But in Finnish those words such as "from", "for", etc. come after the word and without a space in between, so they technically count as parts of the same word. And the ECB declared that "Euro" is a word that cannot be declinated in any manner in any language. There is no way of saying "from" in Finnish without adding an ending to a word, so this was something of a very shitty ruling. Obviously it was simply ignored. But it does showcase a situation where Finland had something that was completely unique in EU and got completely overlooked. Back then Finland was the only Finno-Ugric speaking country in the EU, and in Indo-European languages the decision made sense, but in the one country with a language from a different language family, it didn't. The Finnish language got completely overlooked because Finland was so small, peripheral and insignificant. Maybe not a problem for the EU, but definitely a problem for us people living over here in our insignificant and unimportant corner of the Union.

I would prefer the veto rights being reduced strongly.

At the same time, being from a small country, it also worries me that small countries such as Finland can get trampled by the bigger ones. Finland has very close to 1 % of EU's citizens. There is already a system where smaller countries get more places per capita in the European Parliament than bigger ones, but in the end it changes little. In the EP, Finland has 15 places out of 720, meaning we have about 2% of all the places. And therefore, about 2% of the political power. Assuming the MEPs who are from very different parties could even unite as one front in the first place.

It is a bit scary if Finland only has a 2% weight in any decisions made in the EU. There are already things where we are getting accidentally trampled: There are EU rules about having to add an additive to diesel fuel, to make it less polluting. However, that additive freezes in temperatures that are commonplace in winters in Lapland, at least in nighttime. This means, it is de facto illegal parking a diesel vehicle outdoors during a January night in Lapland. I do not think this was ever the intention of the lawmakers, but that's the law they ended up writing.

But still: I think it might make sense that there would be some way of getting around a veto, but it should be made in some manner unappealing to use unless really needed. And also, the power should, in general, be moved from commission to EP, thus reducing the number of cases where the veto right exists.

I wonder if some kind of "emergency brake" could be deviced for situations where the parliament is about to make a decision that will disproportionately damage a member state. Maybe this could be organized as a law, so that a court could decide if something of exceptional national importance is being overlooked by the EP?

P

Goodbye.

S

Doesn't the pipe go through Poland? Why doesn't Poland just stop delivering the oil?

So, they shot because they were fearing for their safety?

And they shot from behind the car, through the back window, while the car was driving away from both of them.
Okay.

What was the threat they were trying to stay from?

This is only a booster part of the missile, not the whole missile. It is full of fuel, until the fuel is all spent. Then the part is dropped away so that it wouldn't be unnecessary extra weight.

Dies ist das erste Mal, das ich von jemandem mit solchen Pläne gehört habe. Und nicht einmal du bist ernst mit der Verwirkligung deines Plans.

Nö. Das Szenario ist, dass Russland zu den gültigen Grenzen, wie die z.B. im Jahr 2010 waren, vorgedrungen wird.

Putin droht dass er in einem solchen Fall Atomwaffen verwenden wird, was ich extrem bezweifele.

Eine militärische Niederlage wie im 1945 ist hier nicht notwendig und wird nicht stattfinden.

If they have a fighter plane that can shoot missiles, why couldn't they?

Neesi vienīgais.

The Russia has had a tradition of telling about drones hitting targets as "shot down" and being quiet about drones shot down, because they don't want to show how many drones really attacked.

I don't really know why they have elected to tell the amount of targets succesfully hit as "shot down", but maybe they think we won't notice?