US will not overtake the EU on EVs in the near future.
> Norway's experience can't and won't be transferred to other countries
It's already been transfered to Denmark - close to 100% of private sales there are EVs, businesses are a bit lower. Sweden and Finland are between 40-50%, Netherlands and Belgium close to 40%. The major markets of France and Germany along with Austria and Portugal are 25% to 30%. Italy, Spain and central/eastern Europe are much lower, but that will change too. Altogether the EU is at around 20% EVs of the total passenger car market (ignoring PHEVs and the other hybrids as those are ultimately dead ends). This will continue to rise because of the fleet emission fines which make ICEs more expensive, together with carmakers creating cheaper EVs and more factories opening.
The USA is at 5%.
China is at 40%.
And the continually updated source of these numbers is here:
> I tend to suspect that the "gluten-intolerant but can eat noodles in Europe" is a bit bunk.
I think it's possible and also it might be something different happening with the noodles/flour than gluten intolerance which is not well defined anyway (we are not talking about coeliac disease here to be clear). For example my wife can't eat wheat (+durum), spelt and rye products from our country without issues, but can eat rye and spelt products from Austria, anything from Greece and most but not everything from Italy, and that is true both when on vacation there and also when buying their products here (or in case of Austria, buying in Austria).
One thing I want to mention is that gluten-free noodles from big brands (like Barilla) have evolved so much that I now prefer them to their gluten-full equivalents.
One could write a js-less DOM impl I think.. neither Chrome nor Firefox itself is written in js unlike big parts of Linux that are indeed written in C. Explorer shipped with vbscript as a language that can manipulate the DOM.
The really big issue in this case is network effect, which is why I hope something can come out from the momentum building behind WASM.
One couldn't, because you'd need to standardize a JS-less DOM, which requires one to persuade Apple, Google, Microsoft, and Mozilla to agree on a new standard for a JS-less DOM API.
The DOM API is currently defined as a JS API, including JS strings, JS objects + properties, JS Exceptions, JS Promises, JS garbage collection, and on and on and on.
The effort to get all the browsers to agree to standardize a new JS-less DOM API would take years; none of the browser vendors even want to begin that conversation today.
It doesn't have to, the program can bundle its own jre as its often the case, and then you also don't have to worry about jre compatibility. Downside is then you have many jres installed and of course you can't trust their sandboxing.
doesn't happen in my case (OnePlus 15/Android 16, Firefox background usage allowed in some "smart" mode whatever that means, doesn't suck the battery in background although it's on most of the time).
> There are some fascinating youtube videos on digging your own backyard shallow well (12-40').
What's more fascinating is that you would have to dig your own - here in the backyard of Europe you can call a specialised company, they will arrive with a rig and drill a well for you to basically any depth/diameter you want (for heat pumps you can go to 100m) cheap and fast, so it's basically never worth it doing it yourself.
only there are several studies like this:
"These estimates suggest that by 2025, Brexit had reduced UK GDP by 6% to 8%"
https://www.nber.org/papers/w34459
If you read them carefully, you'll find no such studies are using a valid methodology. It's not a hard question to answer either, just compare like with like.
> My point is that it's never really possible to provide a detailed plan for a complete changing of the social order.
That's correct, but if the communist avantguarde says (as they did) "we have to completely change the social order by force, uproot everything, to build communism", there might be questions if it's at least going to be directionally good or bad. And if the answers can't be provided, then perhaps they shouldn't be doing it at all?
Yep, that’s the classic small ‘c’ conservative argument against revolutions or sudden changes. It’s a fine argument, but it’s not specific to communism.
Yeah it's not specific to communism, one just needs to look at the sudden changes the US admin is implementing to see it's broadly applicable, only they don't even pretend to be interested in societally good outcomes.
Sure it did. Spain just gave 500,000 "undocumented migrants" a residence permit. They can now freely move throughout the continent. That sort of act was never envisioned when the Swiss agreed to FoM with the EU, which for most of its history was used only by a tiny minority of people all of whom had a similar culture.
The EU/Swiss agreements don't have to be negotiated as a whole. The whole guillotine clause schtick exists only to try and transfer as much power to the EU Commission as possible. Nothing stops European countries being reasonable and looking for ways to work with each other on whatever areas they can agree; it's a deliberate ideological choice to refuse.
What EU-Switzerland agreement was broken by the EU by this action of Spain? And please do be exact which one and how. Otherwise stop telling lies.
> Nothing stops European countries being reasonable and looking for ways to work with each other on whatever areas they can agree; it's a deliberate ideological choice to refuse.
Yes, and it's the fine and reasonable ideology of protecting your own (in this case EU members') interests against the interests of other countries. Which is why neither the UK nor Switzerland nor other non-members can pick and choose. Makes them understandably unhappy of course, but so what? They are protecting their interests and we are protecting ours.
The treaties don't explicitly say "you may not grant residence en masse to city sized populations of illegal immigrants", because not doing that was considered so obvious it didn't need to be said at the time they were written. Such treaties don't cover a lot of possible but unlikely eventualities, which is why it's bad and wrong to make treat renegotiation artificially difficult.
> it's the fine and reasonable ideology of protecting your own (in this case EU members') interests
It doesn't protect their interests. That's the whole point. If it were about protecting the interests of European countries they could negotiate their each interest individually and independently with each other. The EU construct is deliberately designed to ignore the interests of any specific member state in favour of the interest of a new entity, the European Union, which has an entirely separate set of interests that don't correspond to the interests of the people living in it.
> Which is why neither the UK nor Switzerland nor other non-members can pick and choose
They actually can pick and choose and both have done so successfully. Hence why the EU/Swiss relations aren't governed by membership and why the EU has agreed to work with the UK on various interests without requiring membership (despite denying they'd ever do this at the time).
So no treaty was broken? Why did you write "Sure it did" when you know it wasn't?
> They actually can pick and choose and both have done so successfully.
They didn't. What happened was that some parts of some treaty were renegotiated or amended and agreed by both parties. Which is quite common in any such relationship.
You can use that definition of breaking a treaty if you like. But it's not a good idea. It sends the world a message that negotiating with European countries is dangerous because to avoid getting screwed you'd have to write down all known common sense and social conventions in the text of the treaty, and probably include the contents of a specific dictionary as well, and even then they might just do something crazy you never predicted whilst claiming the agreement was being respected.
Note: this argument was actually used by the pro-Leave faction in the UK. They explicitly argued that any deal Cameron reached with the other EU member states would be worthless because European countries can't be trusted to honor their agreements when it becomes ideologically inconvenient. And that argument landed, which is why Cameron returned with a vaguely worded emergency break deal and then never mentioned it again - nobody took it seriously, and he was forced to campaign on the state of the union as it was, and lost. So these tactics do have a cost.
Treaty law just doesn't work with 'common sense and social conventions' any more than compilers that won't compile your 'common sense and social conventions' text. You have to say exactly what you want, nothing more, nothing less. That's the work of lawyers and negotiators. As my lawyer friends say, well-written agreements make good friends (and vice versa).
But also note that you are the only one against Spain creating a path for a group of people that live there to gain legal status. No one mentioned that as a specific issue worth raising at international level. It's a non-issue.
> But also note that you are the only one against Spain creating a path for a group of people that live there to gain legal status.
Nah I have an issue with it too, conceptually. You're basically rewarding bad actors for breaking rules and laws which is unfair to those who were and are trying to immigrate legally. At a minimum.
Immigration isn't a moral good, it's just a switch we can flip on or off. Too few people? A given society can have more permissive rules. Too many people? Have more restrictive rules. Being an immigrant is just a random status one has by virtue of moving to another country - it's just paperwork.
I'm probably missing something but your last sentence doesn't seem to agree with the rest of the post. If it's just paperwork then surely nothing bad happens not following it (mostly because it's just not possible to immigrate lawfully to most countries in this age).
Note that I'm not defending unlawful immigrants; but once you spend a large amount of life in a country and you did nothing bad I don't see any issue with said country allowing you to stay. It's just acknowledging the status quo. Of course having a safe legal path to residency is obviously much better but too many politicians today as well as in the past are incentivised to disallow that.
> If it's just paperwork then surely nothing bad happens not following it
Well not filling out the paperwork means you'd be in the country without authorization which you know just subjects you to being deported or fined or to face other penalties depending on the laws and regulations of that country. So to your point, nothing really "bad" per-se happens by not following it. You just might be deported or fined and then you have to just accept that reality.
> Note that I'm not defending unlawful immigrants; but once you spend a large amount of life in a country and you did nothing bad I don't see any issue with said country allowing you to stay.
Sure, but conversely if that country decides you're not allowed to stay there's nothing wrong with that. Just being in a country for a long time doesn't retroactively grant you citizenship or anything. Though some countries may from time to time decide that it does, which I find unfortunate especially for those who are pursuing the proper methods. We shouldn't encourage breaking of rules or laws in our societies as a default.
> Of course having a safe legal path to residency
Well in the US at least we do have a safe and legal path to residency. Most other countries around the world are far, far more strict on these requirements.
> Norway's experience can't and won't be transferred to other countries
It's already been transfered to Denmark - close to 100% of private sales there are EVs, businesses are a bit lower. Sweden and Finland are between 40-50%, Netherlands and Belgium close to 40%. The major markets of France and Germany along with Austria and Portugal are 25% to 30%. Italy, Spain and central/eastern Europe are much lower, but that will change too. Altogether the EU is at around 20% EVs of the total passenger car market (ignoring PHEVs and the other hybrids as those are ultimately dead ends). This will continue to rise because of the fleet emission fines which make ICEs more expensive, together with carmakers creating cheaper EVs and more factories opening.
The USA is at 5%.
China is at 40%.
And the continually updated source of these numbers is here:
https://robbieandrew.github.io/carsales/
reply