I would much rather pay for a missile that Ukraine fires against a Russian tank in Ukraine, than pay for a missile I have to fire against the Russian tank myself after it rolled through Ukraine and to my doorstep.
I would also much rather pay to educate the world (using Russia as an example) that the international community isn't putting up with wars of aggression and won't let you get away with them, than have the world thrown into disarray when the next country decides to disrupt global supply chains with their war of aggression.
Supporting Ukraine is a smart thing regardless of what you think of Ukraine. It's also the morally right thing, but if you don't care about that, egoism should drive you to the same decision.
And in some cities they got air conditioning banned or de-facto banned (made so expensive with additional hurdles that it's unaffordable for most, ironically often leading to people using extremely inefficient hose-out-the-window monobloc units that you can buy without asking anyone for permission).
Not sure why climate activists would want people to suffer.
Some because they think it'll make people more aware of the problem and create more pressure to act, others because they think suffering is a virtue, people deserve it for what they have done to earth, and similar nonsense positions.
I'm wondering how long it takes until climate activists start advocating against it (because it would increase the use of AC and thus emissions/energy use, and decrease the amount of people suffering from the heat).
Are there any hidden interests (e.g. environmental activists trying to make traffic a nightmare to discourage cars, someone able to profiteer from the current situation somehow, NIMBYs wanting to block the project due to some other location it affects and attacking it here because it seems easier)?
So one of the complaints seems to be... that you won't be able to see it from the road anymore, suggesting that the tunnel entrances will be out of sight of the monument. I haven't seen arguments that it'll disrupt the stability of the site or anything else either, so from the limited info I have, the complaints sound quite spurious.
Weird. The article does have today's date but only mentions the Nov 10 decision. I think maybe what happened today is the publication of the full text of the decision?
It'd be great if that was how it works, unfortunately it seems like the penalties are closer to once every 3-5 years than monthly, skewing the balance even further to "screw the law, just pay the fee":(
For a normal company, abusing data is a small part of their business and profit is a few percent of revenue, so such a fine would be devastating.
For some tech companies, profit is in the double digit percent of revenue and half of it comes from breaking the law, so the 4% are a tax they can happily pay and still be more profitable than if they followed the law.
Same misleading nonsense. If you follow the links it becomes obvious that it's the old news banning FB from using the data on the basis of contract and legitimate interest - which they're avoiding by claiming "consent" after people choose that they'd rather not pay a triple-digit amount per year to use the site.
No, the article is just regurgitating old news and the old misleading claim (omitting the critical part that they're only banned from using data "on the basis of contract and legitimate interest").
This "news" is what made Facebook start with the "agree or pay" bullshit.
That sounds like something Jackass would do.