Sometimes deals can be arranged with countries of origin (or nearby), even if it takes time and diplomatic effort (and probably some compensation to the receiver).
If that fails, and anyways until that succeeds (if ever), you still have to treat these people as humans with dignity and rights.
If they are criminals, they serve their time like anyone else.
But first and foremost, if only for pragmatic reasons, society should look for ways to integrate these individuals in a way which benefits everyone; as a productive member. Most people don't strive to live in misery, and they probably came to your country in hopes of a better future. Help them build that, and everybody might win.
The alternative is to become a monster yourself and still have no answers.
It is frequently discussed to ban far-right parties. Decades ago, the NPD could have been banned but it was turned down because they were too insignificant (only getting a few percent in elections, if at all).
With the AfD, it's a different story. They are rather too significant (getting double digit percents). Politicians are worried that if a ban fails, it could give them even more fuel. Some subconscious thought nags me that this wasn't the actual reason, but it's the best I can do right now.
Yeah, basically the US can decide who gets how much of an advantage in this war by simply dialing up or down their military aid.
Ukraine not willing to negotiate? Dial it down. Russia not willing? Dial it up.
So they can end this war if they are willing to invest accordingly. But not this conflict. Will that lead to a stable peace, or just another war in the near future? Without satisfying answers to these questions, Ukraine is probably better off to keep fighting, even without any US aid, which repeals the first sentence of this paragraph.
I think the most important insight is that you can achieve the same result with far less effort if you stay on Earth.
On Mars, you're basically building survival shelters with no trade network to rely on in a hostile downright deadly environment. In a place where we don't even know how to get there, and how to bring all the stuff we need, and many more unknowns.
It might just be that the same effort can achieve more on Earth. And no matter how bad Earth becomes in terms of climate, toxicity, heck even if atmosphere AND oceans fully turn into dead zones, it's still far more suitable than Mars (you mentioned two important factors), and the transport problem is nonexistent or already solved.
[Edit, emphasis: Even assuming decades of nuclear winter after WW3, it's still far more practical to build a bunker shielded against radioactivity on Earth. On Mars, you'd had to do a similar thing.
Interestingly, this argument becomes stronger the more Earth is made uninhabitable. Because any Mars colony would heavily depend on reliable supplies from Earth for decades, if not longer. Which becomes increasingly harder / more unreliable the worse the situation on Earth becomes. At some point on the scale of how bad things can become, we cannot sustain space travel any longer.]
I hope we colonize Mars some day, but it makes zero sense as a means to escape an ecological catastrophe, since Mars is orders of magnitude worse and orders of magnitude harder.
This extremely high entry barrier might possibly seem as a good thing for people who are super rich and afraid of other humans, since it makes it practically impossible for all the poor and desperate to attempt to raid their luxury bunker. Best moat ever. But again, for the same budget you can easily get an automated army of killer machines which rivals most nations, if you simply stay on Earth.
Given how much noise exit parties, or generally anti EU sentiments can cause, I'd also prefer a higher bar. Be welcomed if you join, but please be sure about it.
people need to read more code, play around with it, break it and fix it to become better programmers.
I think AI bots can help with that. It's easier now to play around with code which you could not write by yourself, and quickly explore different approaches. And while you might shy away from asking your colleagues a noob question, ChatGPT will happily elaborate.
In the end, it's just one more tool in the box. We need to learn when and how to use it wisely.
Alright, thanks! I think I understand where you're coming from, and can relate. I'm an ex-Christian, although I guess for ex-Muslims this process is a whole other beast.
And yes, I know exactly what you mean about culture and critique - as an leftwing, anti-theist leaning atheist, I often have to cringe about my peers. It feels like false romanticizing, like we did with native americans, or other falsly understood cultures. So many things which I despise in fascism are also present in strict Christianity and strict Islam. Although luckily, very few people take their religion seriously here. So our religious nutjobs are a fringe minority and can mostly be ignored.
Refugees welcome, but I hate it when they try to establish religio-fascist areas here, spewing hate and all their nonsense, occasionally killing someone. I mean, if you want to live like that, go back. If you like our way, be welcome.
Yeah, a sensitive topic which can easily trigger people. I try not to care about the boxes they try to put me in. And I absolutely love the freedom of speech we have here. I don't want that be ruined by migrants who think they speak for Allah, nor by leftists who think every minority shares their values. Like I was one of them. In my youth, with coloured hair and ragged clothes, I was regularly beaten up by (almost exclusively) migrants. Created quite some cognitive dissonance, some effort to justify their deeds, like worse socioeconomic status blabla. Truth is, many people are quite "conservative", naturally more so in less liberal countries of origin. And still, I vote and speak for open borders. Our society must find better ways than building walls. This issue is challenging European core values, with at least two ways to erode the values; we can lose them by allowing hostile subcultures to grow, or we can lose them by closing us off to the outside.
Good lord, 6 years. Poor Aisha. I guess my brain was happy to forget that detail.
I think there are stories in the Quran or the other important texts (Hadid?) about their prophet marrying a 9yo. Although I've witnessed controversy around her exact age amongst people in /r/DebateReligion. Like some said it wasn't too bad, she was almost 14 or so.
Now your turn, what do you think? And why did you want them not to google?
Can confirm, it sucks to wait there. Hard to reach (always tempting to risk your life for catching the bus), noisy, stinky, plus ours has bicyclists zooming through the isle.
To optimize the intersection for car traffic. Or maybe rather to minimize signal wait times.
If pedestrians could take the shortest path, it would roughly double the size of the intersection in both width and height. Which then requires clearing times on each signal pass to be longer. Which ultimately makes everybody wait longer at the intersection, including pedestrians.
So, that is one possible explanation. I guess you didn't really ask for one, and maybe I should also add that it's just that; an explanation, not a justification.
Right. Also the speed of transition matters a lot.
Take any devastating effect that climate change might bring. Regions becoming uninhabitable, millions migrating, thousands of houses destroyed, crops failing, species going extinct.
For any of these effects, it helps a great deal if they can be delayed by years or hopefully decades. It gives everything more time to adapt. Like 10 million people migrating in 1 year puts a hell lot more stress on everybody involved (including the receiving countries) compared to 10 million migrating in 10 years.
Or your country might be blessed to deal with wildfires and floods one after the other, instead of both occuring simultaneously.
Hehe, right! (technically). Context matters! When talking about fruit, people usually don't include stellar objects when weighing their options. Still true when taking in consideration that "apples to oranges" is usually metaphorical and not really about fruit.
when two things have very few attributes in common or the attributes they can be compared on are very broad, general or abstract, it is harder to compare them.
A melon and a pogo stick are harder to compare, for their defining attributes hardly overlap except on a very abstract way.
Good on you to say "harder to compare" :D
it’s all semantic subjectivity. Poetry compares dissimilar things and equates unequal concepts all the time.
Another thing worthwhile to point out; subjectivity. I guess that part bothered me too. "cannot be compared" attempts to establish some kind of objective truth, whereas it only can be a subjective opinion.
Sometimes deals can be arranged with countries of origin (or nearby), even if it takes time and diplomatic effort (and probably some compensation to the receiver).
If that fails, and anyways until that succeeds (if ever), you still have to treat these people as humans with dignity and rights.
If they are criminals, they serve their time like anyone else.
But first and foremost, if only for pragmatic reasons, society should look for ways to integrate these individuals in a way which benefits everyone; as a productive member. Most people don't strive to live in misery, and they probably came to your country in hopes of a better future. Help them build that, and everybody might win.
The alternative is to become a monster yourself and still have no answers.