This is not correct at all. You are perfectly entitled to be a fascist in your own four walls, even discuss your fascist ideals with your friends. You can not, however, advocate for fascism in public or use insignias or texts of the NSDAP for anything but educational purposes.
> (3) Whosoever publicly or in a meeting approves of, denies or downplays an act committed under the rule of National Socialism of the kind indicated in section 6 (1) of the Code of International Criminal Law, in a manner capable of disturbing the public peace shall be liable to imprisonment not exceeding five years or a fine.[36][37]
Of course the distinction you are trying to draw smacks of sophistry to begin with. From what I can tell, you can be anti-islamic in your own four walls and even discuss your secular ideals with your friends in Pakistan, beacon of free speech, as well[1].
[1] As long as you don't defile the name of a prophet. That seems to carry a mandatory death sentence (plus fine, to really rub it in), even if it occurs within your own walls.
The wording might be off, but public advocacy is basically what is meant by "in a manner to disturb the public peace". This does not include discussing facsim in your home, but does include you not being able to hang a NSDAP-flag from your window.
I wonder why so many free-speech advocates are hell-bent on enabling fascists to spread their propaganda. They are certainly not the first but not the last group they will drag to their camps or shoot.
To compare this kind of law to fundamentalist religious law is a special kind of ignorant.
> I wonder why so many free-speech advocates are hell-bent on enabling fascists to spread their propaganda.
Do you also wonder why so many cryptography advocates are hell-bent on enabling not just fascists but also pedophiles and terrorists to plan and commit their crimes or are your difficulties of comprehension more selective?
> To compare this kind of law to fundamentalist religious law is a special kind of ignorant.
Pakistan (unlike, say, Saudi Arabia) has constitutionally enshrined freedom of expression. Can you point to some fundamental difference that makes the restrictions Pakistan places on this right incomparable to those Germany places on it?
That just sounds horrible to me. Breaking Bad was interesting precisely because it had to end. It was about very specific characters, their changing motivations and development.
Rebooting every episode just because the premise is kinda cool and someone wants more of it diminishes what the series achieved both visually and conceptually.
I think once the original episodes are done you need to do something different. They went back in time and did a good series on the criminal lawyer. Now that is done.
If you could watch 100 different mini action movies where anything could happen. Everyone could die or everyone becomes nice and gets a desk job. It is less predictable and would be a fun thing.
What about you want to watch Law and Order SVU but just an average non-crazy day, fly on the wall style. I think that would be interesting.
I do not think different is a good qualifier for good television. As much as I'd like to see more about the character Mike for example, I would not like to see him in some action movie. His character shines in it's very personal moments, while his prowess regarding violence etc. need only to be hinted at.
The action laden sequences are by far the least interesting aspect of Breaking Bad, serving at best as a somewhat believable and tension-relieving climaxes for emotionally taxing, morally difficult and thrilling parts of the show.
The team behind Breaking Bad managed to tell a cohesive, character driven story despite all the creative restrictions making a show for a large TV network causes (think profitability, playing to as broad of a set of sensibilities as possible).
Telling a thousand different stories in the same world and with the same characters drains them of believability and lessens the emotional impact of the stories significantly - they become arbitrary.
Better Call Saul was a good show because it divorced one of the more important characters (but by far not a main character) almost entirely from the original and focused heavily on humor, with light aspects of drama. Breaking Bad was the other way around.
Therefore, I cannot think of a show that is running for it's 21st season as anything more than at best the visual equivalent of easy listening music, at worst a continued cash grab by the studio producing and network distributing it. For a work of art to be meaningful, it needs to come to some kind of conclusion regarding it's content lest it reiterates the same points again and again, becoming boring in the proccess.
Of course, there is something to be said in favor of easy listening music or TV productions intended mostly for basic entertainment, I recognise this discussion is largely predicated on taste. But I think calling something like that art misses the point that has made art historically so important for humans: The intentional representation of thoughts and experiences of the artist(s) in a specific medium meant to elucidate active engagement with the topics at hand.
Cannabis can very well lead to dependency, I struggled with it for the majority of my adult life. I totally agree that illegalising it is laughable and it's by no means as dangerous or easy to get addicted to it as is the case with benzodiazepines, but it is also no joke. Of course I am talking about "recreational" use, not medical.
I really dislike the handwaving nature with which the very real and especially psychologically quite harmful side-effects of Cannabis are discussed for the most part. Mind you, I believed it to be harmless for the longest time, too.
My eyes near roll through my head when I hear people say this.
Anything can lead to dependency. ANYTHING. Sex, judo, farting for attention. Scratching your sack. Making shitty tik-toks.
The withdrawal symptoms for cannabis are so, so, so so far from that of opiates or nicotine; or benzos, as you mention, that yeah, you can basically say there are no withdrawal symptoms.
Some people are prone to dependence on things, due to their physiology or psychological make-up. Those people are far, far, far better off using cannabis than benzos or opiates. Look at how much deaths from overdoses go down in legalized areas. That applies in both medicinal and recreational contexts.
> ...very real and especially psychologically quite harmful side-effects of Cannabis
Wut. Quite harmful compared to what - water? Water kills more people than cannabis does.
On balance, far more people find psychological benefit than harm from cannabis. Same with physical health. Handwave that away.
Compare the side-effects from cannabis to ibuprofen. Come on man, let's keep some perspective here.
So, who cares, right? Withdrawal symptoms of sugar are nothing compared to opiates, yet it's a bigger epidemic than opiate addiction. But since it doesn't make your skin crawl and hallucinate, it doesn't matter?
Cannabis is quite benign in the grand scheme of things, but let's stop saying it's the cure to all problems and that it has no downsides. Like GP I have been through the marijuana addiction phase and it wasn't fun. I'm prone to get addicted to stuff, so that's on me, my quitting my 5 joints a day was almost as hard as quitting my pack a day smoking habit. The difference is that smoking didn't turn me into an idiot pot-head that burned away a big part of his teenage years, of which I can't remember much. Certainly nicotine didn't trigger my anxiety which almost turned into psychosis like THC did. Talking just about dependency and the physical withdrawal means ignoring a big part of what marijuana smoking actually does, something stoners really do not want to talk about.
Right. I don't like sugar being in everything, but I don't cry about evil sugar making me buy pop rocks and ice cream. I don't want sugar to be banned, or to force rehab on people guzzling too much cola. Ending the crazy ass subsidies for corn syrup would be nice though...
> let's stop saying it's the cure to all problems and that it has no downsides.
For every time I've heard someone say that cannabis is a pancea, I've heard 100 people say people need to stop calling it a panacea. It's so tiresome.
> turn me into an idiot pot-head that burned away a big part of his teenage years
Pfft, you did that, not cannabis. Cannabis didn't hold a gun to your head and say smoke me, like heroin or nicotine. Yeah, under 18yos shouldn't smoke. That point gets lost in all the nonsense left over from decades of misinformation. Making it illegal makes that issue far worse, through increased availability to teenagers, and awful contaminants.
And yeah, THC has a (poorly understood and far from straightforward) link with psychosis. So if you're feeling that, then get a high CBD strain, or don't smoke. That's common knowledge and not something to twist your pants over.
I recommend Kropotkin's book about Mutual Aid regarding this topic. Disregarding his obvious political affiliation he is one of the first critics of the then-emerging social-darwinist readings of animal behaviour with regards to Evolution and therefore deals with this topic quite extensively.
He was a zoologist apart from all the other topics he had time to deal in because of his noble heritage. Here is the wikipedia article [0] since I do not know how HN regards links to e.g. libgen.
That'd make him one of the last of the old-line ethologists, before the dark interregnum of the behaviorist scum began - I respect Kropotkin considerably more now than I did five minutes ago. Perhaps I'll read him after all.
This[0] is a video by Adam Neely, who frequently talks about the cluster f*ck that is copyright law with regards to music, interviewing two guys having done this (within some constraints).
This[1] is the website linking to the dataset and code that was used to generate it.
Agile's crisis (which is real) is because despite the generativity of the manifesto, the frameworks it spawned largely ignore how change happens in a healthy and sustainable way. It is deeply ironic how much the Agile industry leans into 1990's models of change (solution-driven, imposed, etc).
That explains an awful lot. When people think that it's enough that they're right, bad things happen. Agile doesn't actually need a theory of society to understand that, just a little humility.
The Scaled Agile Framework (SAFe) includes review and change cycles driven by teams at the grass roots level. Of course some organizations skip that part, but you can't blame agile frameworks for management choices.
Every framework has some kind of inspect-and-adapt thing going, nothing special about SAFe in that regard. The bigger question is how the organisation is supposed to get from zero (not using the framework) to the point where it is working at every scale, necessary if claims of business agility etc are to be realised. If the answer is a rollout project, then the dissonance there (not to mention the pain) should not be underestimated.
Organizations starting from zero typically hire experienced trainers and consultants to guide them through the initial implementation and then a few cycles. That's expensive, but cheaper than failing. Of course if senior leadership isn't truly committed then it still won't work, but that's not the fault of the framework.
It's also only a couple of paragraphs in a long post and offers some evidence of parts of the agile methodology (retrospectives and code reviews) being used to harass people so it seems unfair to knock the article for those reasons in my opinion
That's a problem with top-down management in general. If your management is largely old white men who pull the strings, yes obviously it's going to account for their opinions the most.
Author misses the part where the majority of the working force is also "white men" who see no benefit from this either, because it turns out, the decisions of management aren't for "white men" or even "old white men". The decisions are for "our management".
Agreed. I am a white man but I don’t feel much connection to upper management. It doesn’t really matter if the leaders are white, not white, male or not. They are out for themselves and don’t really care about their underlings.
That's really interesting. In Germany poetry is handled differently. In the earlier years of what would be high-school there are poets like Jandel[0] and Morgenstern[1] in the curriculum who wrote a lot of funny, nonsensical poems playing with language a lot.
Later (if you do schooling aimed at getting you to university) there is a lot of in-depth reading of romantic[2]as well as clacissist (think the latet works of Goethe and Schiller) poetry. Also, at least in my Latin classes, we also read Ovid, as well as Shakespeare's sonnets.
These poems are analysed regarding their contents, as well as more formally concerning meter etc.
[0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ernst_Jandl
[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_Morgenstern
[2] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romanticism
I'm of two minds about the gymnasium system. On the one hand, as you say, it seems to provide a better, more well-rounded education than the public school system of at least my native Australia. But on the other hand, I am constitutionally incapable of endorsing any kind of streamed education system, despite (or in actual fact because of) having attended a highly selective school myself. My gut reaction, in all my idealism, is that the quality and level of education of a selective school should be available for everyone. Of course there are myriad obstacles, etc. etc. (I won't dwell on them because it depresses me.)
But surely public education can be a whole lot better even for the broad masses of the population: e.g. apparently the Soviet maths curriculum (for which the textbooks are freely available online, interesting to look at) was highly advanced when compared to the e.g. Australian one (which is more advanced than the American one), and yet the two systems had similar rates of attainment within each curriculum. More personally, it's astonishing to me the rates at which even highly educated Americans speak of calculus only in hushed and awed voices as if it's some kind of arcane art, and equally it was astonishing to me during high school to see that my friends (who, not to brag, I do not believe are significantly more intelligent than me) were so incredibly advanced in mathematics compared to me, simply because of their private tuition.
To get back on topic, how is the status of poetry in German culture? Is it more mainstream, do you think, than in English-speaking culture? More popular?
(And finally, to add another parenthetical to an already bloated and unedited post, I may as well qualify my assertions in my original comment: Poetry is not completely absent during high school education. I remember there was one 4-weekish unit on slam poetry, though to my recollection it consisted mostly of memorising a litany of 'poetic techniques'. [Also, to be fair, the predominant method in teaching prose.] And of course there is, which should perhaps not really count, the perennial acrostic - which I suspect was the only form of poetry they thought children could write.)
I think for this kind of niche, academic topic (even though the discutants are quite well known) 100k views per week after publication is nothing scoff at.
Context is that it was a popular meme on Twitter/Reddit, not just popular for an academic topic:
> Plus, it makes a good meme. The hungry crowds on Reddit and Twitter love it: a YouTube video of a discussion on techno-feudalism by Varoufakis and Slavoj Žižek garnered over 300,000 views in just three weeks.
You are propably right, even though my experience with explicitly socialist (using the European meaning of the word here) topics nd discussions like this one is, that it does not get much traction outside of already quite leftist circles.
I for example didn't know of the discussion they had until I read the article.
Police brutality is the direct effect of a state trying to uphold it's monopoly for violence. This monopoly in turn is (in the current situation) neccessary to uphold the expolitation of labour and the functioning of the state itself.
Of course this is not exlusive to the capitalist system. The expropriation of serfs in feudalist societies through the armed forces of nobility serves a similiar purpose under a different economic and political system.
Just the same as capitalism has a tangible effect on how the pandemic is dealt with. Where I live for example there were multiple cases of industrial workers (often migrants working for a few month and then returning to their home country) contracting the virus en masse, which in turn had a lot to do with overcrowded houses and flats where they were forced to live.
> Police brutality is the direct effect of a state trying to uphold it's monopoly for violence.
The only alternative to a monopoly on violence is an open turf war among crime gangs, quite probably involving far more brutality. There are plenty of nation states outside the U.S. with better run police and no gang wars, implying that they do manage to successfully regulate (i.e. "monopolize") the initiation of force. These things have basically nothing to do with each other.
The prevailance of gang violence has it's root in social and economic imbalance, too.
I do not disagree, police violence is different and not as "brutal" (can't find a better word) where I live, but of course I look onto the US as an outsider.
I also do not think that letting society splinter into rackets would be preferable to the status quo, but I do think the status quo leaves a lot do be desired for the majority of people.
EDIT: This shows itself e.g. in the organisation of precarised people in gangs.
That police brutality and the state upholding it's monopoly for violence have nothing to do with each other seems far-fetched though. The police is the instution that guarantees this monopoly within the borders of every Nation state, it's quite literally their raison d'etre.
Whenever someone only offers me one alternative, I get suspicious.
Street gangs as they currently exist in the US were created by the prison system, an arm of the state violence apparatus. Conveniently, they're also an excuse to increase police budgets. More policing, in turn, puts more people into prison.
I don't think that alternative is actually even an alternative.
You could also look at the cheaper Arturia synth. I really like how they sound (though AFAIK a lot of people don't - maybe take a listen to some Demos on YouTube) and find them decently intuitive for a beginner.
The microbrute for example comes with a small patchbay (be careful of the modular rabbit hole though).
A cursory search suggests prices between 150 and 200€ (sorry, to lazy to do conversion since I'm on Mobile).
I only played with the Behringer clones a little at a friend's place. They sound totally fine, I think Arturia's build quality is way better, though. They have the benefit of being clones of popular (some may say famous) synth like the Moog Model D or the Roland 303, so they have a familiar sound.
EDIT: The comment below phrases it even better.