Agreed. The eu is basically a german/french dictatorship. The thing is, once the uk recovers after the leave event, many other eu countries will follow suit.
I think the UK has a problem with being an equal and has not got over its loss of empire, just look at how they treat their own constituent countries such as Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales
> What? EU is loose federation of 29 EQUAL members
To be fair: whatever us Germans and the French want, we eventually get - most often by outright nation-scale bribery. It's all backroom dealing - for example, us Germans get no opposition preventing harsher pollution regimes EU-wide (to protect our heavy car-oriented industry), the countries which would oppose get EU funding grants for construction or whatever.
Likewise for the UK. Not even talking about the outrageously good (even slightly unfair) membership rebate they have, I remember reading that the UK has been outvoted around 2% of the time at the EU level, and not on important matters either.
To be fair: an economically stronger partner getting more of what they want because of backroom dealing etc. is not a "german/french dictatorship" as stated by OP - it's simple realpolitik.
> just look at how they treat their own constituent countries such as Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales
Don't forget England. Brexit is basically just an English nationalist idea. Ironically, if the UK had devolved more powers to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland (something the Westminster parliament has generally fought against), England might have found its own thirst for taking back control satiated.
The eu is far from a federation. And there is much imbalance between eu countries that a few more will burst against germany’s dictats. Everything that happens in the eu is decided by that country. Really worrying that few other countries speak up against it.
also, the weak Euro reduces the cost of German exports making them more competitive - effectively they benefit from having other EU members being poor. There are supposed to be rules about trade deficits so that stronger economies don't swamp the weaker ones but these are just ignored. Of course, a large advanced industrial economy like the UK should be able to keep up with that and similarly take advantage …
This is how international trade works. It's intimately intertwined with diplomacy and each party will play according to its own interests, related or not.
Just like Russia could say "no gas for you" if you make too much of a fuss about what happened in Crimea.
Now if the UK's view of its own future diverges from the EU, it's totally normal to see complications appear during negotiations.
After leaving, the UK will be in a weak negotiating position. Recession is almost certain, and even using an existing trade deal like CETA as a basis will take multiple years to negotiate because of the current UK red lines, like controlling their own immigration policy.
Canada had to adjust their immigration policy for several EU countries to get CETA. The UK will be over a barrel and will have to make major concessions.
Whether you're pro EU or not this situation is a total balls-up.
Watching the UK negotiating a trade deal with the USA and China at the same time, considering the current geopolitical climate, will be outright interesting. Also take the HK situation into consideration.
There was a pro china candidate, obama, and he did it for free. He didn't even flinch an eye when china prevented or restricted us companies from doing business in china, neither did he strongly call them out for intellectual property theft.
Sometimes i get the feeling some are contrarian only for the sake of it. Advocating using windoze without av is like advocating not using condoms because it doesn't feel good.
Just to clarify, does Common Sense 2019 Pro come with an ad-blocker for protection against malvertising? I still run into a lot of people who think malvertising isn't a thing. It was worse back when flash adverts were common, but it's still really bad
As a rare windows user (two or free times a year) i never trust a machine without an av. maybe things changed, but i see windows as so unsafe that i would not even login with to regular email, let alone make online payments. I simply see that os as a vulnerability by default.
I don't run Windows myself, but honestly: Remote exploitable Windows vulnerabilities on a default install are somewhat rare nowadays. MS has come a long way here.
I remember the smashing the stack for fun and profit windows days. It was so easy to inject shell code it was laughable. Btw can you still name a file smss.exe, run it, and not end the process with the task manager?
I haven’t ran Windows outside a VM (and only then for FPGA/ASIC programming tools) in the better part of a decade myself and loathe every second of the time I do run it in a VM, yet I still think you are out of line here.
Windows really isn't as bad as its reputation when it comes to security. It goes for windows as it goes for any other OS: Don't install crap you cannot trust. Don't run everything as root (UAC). Think before you give anything elevated rights.
I have seen my share of ridiculous security flaws in ALL OS'. Anyone remember when you could login on any mySQL server by simply trying enough times? That wasn't windows specific! (back in 2012!)
“Cracks have appeared, and in 2018, part of the road had to be demolished due to damage from wear and tear.” as opposed to regular roads which never crack
“the road was only producing half of the expected energy” - great, so just 2 km of a solar road could power the streetlights of an entire city the size of Tourouvre, 3700 people.
We shouldn’t raise the white flag so quickly. I think we need a second iteration at least before we call it a failure.
Cracks don't cause a regular road to fail entirely, while if a solar panel cracks in half, it will most likely stop working.
Also I don't see how solar roads make any sense when there is so much unused roof space and parking lots. Putting panels over a parking lot is much easier since you don't have to build them to withstand many-tonne automobiles, they will always be in full sunlight instead of being covered by dirt and vehicles, and they can be angled towards the sun. Even in theory, I think solar roads are a failure.
I suspect the idea was partly that we already have to build infrastructure for roads; why not make the roads also a source of power?
In practice it will take many iterations to reach a point where it makes sense. Or it simply may never make sense.
The recent articles about some California farmlands being converted to solar fields does make sense. They were running out of water, but they had a lot of land to use for something.
Even if solar roads can work, there's still the problem of relatively inefficient tranfer of power over long distances. It makes little sense to spend a lot of money to make a solar road that's far away from energy consumers since a lot of the energy produced by the road will be lost in transit.
So after my erroneous comment, i have learned that roofs, parking lots and bike lanes are better candidates. I just dint want to give up on converting asphalt to energy generators.
Think the person you responded to meant for the solar panels to be above the parking lot, not the parking lot surface. IIRC, Google has quite a far solar panels in their parking lots, where they not only generate electricity but also provide shade for the cars parked there. I've also seen a couple of rather massive solar panels in central Atlanta near CNN. I was told they were installed by Ted Turner because he has a penthouse nearby. No idea how much power they generate but it does provide some nice shade.
There was a different comment recommending parking lots, and i summed up all my thoughts in the comment above. To me it sounds like France could use some shade as well as some clean energy. Calling it quits is just not an option given the crazy heat waves of recent in Europe, and we should hold onto to anything that improves what we have right now even if by 1%.
It's a fundamentally stupid idea. Passing solar light requires transparency. Transparent materials (glass, plastics) wear quickly and make terrible road surfaces. Texturing the surface to make it a better road reduces transparency and increases wear even more.
How about solar (covered) parking lots, solar roofs, etc. It makes far, far, far, far more sense.
Road surfaces need the ability to flex while withstanding huge loads. Materials such as asphalt have this ability. Glass, in layers thick enough to support the loads necessary do not.
Bitumen can also be patched and repaired relatively quickly and easily, and can use relatively simple machinery to repair/replace large sections at once. Solar panels require a lot more surface preparation, precision joining and when they break (because they will - accidents happen), leave dangerous road surfaces that cannot be easily patched/repaired.
Solar Roadways won't work with our current state of technology where we need fixed rigid panels. Something that is either a replacement for bitumen, or can be mixed into it and is able to self-assemble a current pathway might be a viable option. But we're a long ways off doing anything like that.
> “Cracks have appeared, and in 2018, part of the road had to be demolished due to damage from wear and tear.” as opposed to regular roads which never crack
Regular roads don't fall apart in 18 months, they take 18 years (or longer) to do so.
Touche, a good point, but a first attempt is not usually reliable. I think we should learn more about what could be done different? Should instead all bike lanes be made of solar “panels” because the wights is all yet they would cover a large surface if they were to cover the whole city? How does a traveled road get covered in leaves?
Former immigrant to the uk from the eu, manager, head of and consultant. I feel like your comment should not have been downvoted because it is and understandable worry.
Here is why.
In the uk immigrants from non eu countries, and thus on restrictive work visas (somewhat similar to h1b) usually earned way less than locals or eu citizens because they had no option but to take any offer only to be allowed to stay in the country. Example: ai engineers from south korea would earn 35k gbp a year, while their uk or eu counterparts could earn well above 70k gbp.
Restrictive visas and abusive employers are a wage depressing mix, unfair to both locals and new comers. My guess would be that if your employer underpays your former h1b colleagues then that is not an employer you want to work for because indeed your pay will stay low.
Eu citizens however were free to work without restriction and as such compete on equal terms as locals. Much like in Canada where immigrants under express entry are able to change jobs as they wish, eu citizens could change jobs as they wish. The result was that instead of outsourcing to india or other countries, uk companies suddenly started growing at home as they had plenty of resources. Thus job opportunities and pay went up both for locals and eu immigrants. As a hiring manager, demand was so high that either eu immigrants or locals had to be payed more and more each year.
Similarly, in Canada, the more resources companies will find, the less they will outsource and the more pay will go up over time.
As brexit is biting in and less devs are on the market, some of those companies are now either outsourcing or opening new branches in other eu countries to hire the same people as they would have in the uk, simply because there are not enough devs left. This means less opportunities for locals.
Another thing is that more devs, means more ideas floating around, and that means more skills you can get.
It can be frightening and if there are many abusive employers and restrictive visas wages can go down, but something tells me they will go up as indeed canada is a country with a north american business mindset. And if you mix tech and capital the result will be job and pay growth which i have seen in london/europe. You should embrace this if you want your pay to double in the next 5 years. Mine did in london as when i moved there the “revolution” was only starting and it was an awesome ride.
I am not an optimist. It doesn't matter to me if my salary doubles in the next five years unless it improves my quality of life living here. After seeing the major cities here change so much over the last 15 years, I am convinced that an expanded presence of large tech companies will make things worse in every metric I care about: housing; healthcare; affordable education; transportation; etc. Great, I can afford the latest iPhone! Who cares?
Come to think, what you describe are exactly the issues i had around london. Yay i could get a new iphone, but buying a property would mean an enormous loan and the size of that property would have been tiny. Overcrowding was another issue, trains were filled to the point where people would stick their noses in other peoples armpits, roads jammed, loads of small shops with low quality products, and ofc loads of crime. I ended up leaving, and one option was toronto, but gave up at the thought it might become another london. Left back for my home country, but my nature is to explore and experience new places, it’s just that the thought of yet another london is unbearable. And most tech jobs are centred around such cities. I just dont want to be a part of the tech worker scene that “changes the world and are the best” but cant afford even basic things in life such as owning a decent property with plenty of room for kids to grow up happily. So i am working remote and working on a side project. Maybe once it takes off i will retire in a small city in a developed country and buy a big ass mansion and enjoy life as it should be.
Another good point, re quality of life. In london the quality of life is quite low, despite high salaries. I am wondering if toronto can do something different and learn from mistakes made by other tech boom cities. I.e. how to avoid congestion, how to keep house process at an affordable level, etc. It would be interesting to have tech companies located outside the city centre as a starting point. Of course there is the solution of not welcoming these companies and immigrants, but is there a way their presence can be leveraged for the greater good, by learning from mistakes made by others?
