Tango

I’ll give that a try, thanks!

Not the person you’re responding to but if I wanted to turn an old Asus MeMO Pad 7 into something I could stream from my PC with, would you advise me to install Postmarket OS, LineageOS, something else?

TBH I never thought that it would be Iran that would be the last nation on Earth to figure this out.

I must say, this Mamdani fellow seems to be having a lot of success very quickly. One has to wonder why nobody ever tried any of this before. Can it really be that the switch to using Ranked Choice Voting in NY primaries made THAT much of a difference in the type of candidate that made it through?

Taiwan calls itself the Republic of China, IIRC

I’m worried by the fact that your answer didn’t include the simple word “no” (edit: it does NOW, but… you know what I mean), but for now I’m going to assume that you’re being cagey because you think I’m trying to trick you with sophistry. I’m not trying to trick you - I’m trying to establish common ground - we are starting from the same premise of not wanting people to die - so that when my line of thinking at some point diverges from yours, you can see my thinking and hopefully my point. And/or perhaps I’ll understand yours a little better.

So let’s try another semi-rhetorical question (I say semi-rhetorical because while I hope I can already guess what your answer will be, I also genuinely want to know if my guess is wrong).

If Israel can be persuaded to stop attacking Palestinians, to stop trying to push Palestinians out of the land they live in, and even return to the 1949 borders as they recognize a full state of Palestine, that would be good, yes? And the comflict would no longer need to continue, yes?

Let me ask you a semi-rhetorical question that I assume (and hope) has an obvious answer: do you think the people of Israel should be wiped out?

Hint: I’m assuming (and hoping) that the obvious answer is “no”.

To carry out a conversation on this subject, I think it’s important to clarify EXACTLY what is meant, both explicitly and implicitly, by the statement “Israel has no right to exist”.

The rules today is that NEW members must join the Eurozone once they meet the economic convergence criteria.

I know. I’m saying that that’s the loophole: you can intentionally fail to meet the convergence criteria. You just don’t join ERM II. That’s how Sweden’s avoiding taking the euro, it’s how Hungary’s avoiding it, it’s how Poland’s avoiding it, even Romania who joined in 2007 is avoiding taking the euro by simply not joining ERM II.

I respect that Denmark specifically negotiated for an opt-out instead of doing what these other countries did which was essentially agreeing to take the euro but crossing their fingers.

Sweden doesn’t qualify for the euro either. That’s the loophole. They’re failing the qualification criteria on purpose, because (they argue) joining ERM II is optional.

Hungary joined in 2004 and is using the same loophole. I’ve seen or heard nothing to suggest that the loophole has ever been done away with.

Those are some very impressive reforms, yes. Doesn’t sound like Magyar is gonna try to be Orbán 2.0, like some were worried about.

Technically speaking, Point 1 isn’t guaranteed to be demanded by the EU. Most of the EU agrees that the UK rejoining would be a huge benefit to the EU. Whether that means the EU would agree to waive the monetary union requirement is not a settled question.

Furthermore, even if Brussels DID demand that the UK agree to take the Euro like all new joining members, there are loopholes that allow a member state to agree to that but then never finish the process. Sweden for example.

The EU might be better off without Germany? Are you serious?

If the law targets Israel specifically then it might qualify as a sanction and require unanimity. However, if the law only specifies “territories which have been declared by the UN to be illegally occupied”, then a law which bans trade with such territories would be more of a general trade policy and be covered by qualified majority.

Bold of you to assume I’m gonna be able to afford a back yard.

Are you saying that the increase from 80cm to 90cm is definitely the result of EU safety regulations? If I google the date on which the regulation you mention came into force, are you certain that I’m gonna find that EU bonnet sizes before that date were typically 80cm, and bonnet sizes after that date were typically 90cm? Bonnet size has definitely only increased as a result of EU regulation, and not as a result of EU regulation and increasing engine size?

I only ask because you didn’t cite any sources so I don’t wanna go to the trouble of doing all this research only to be told that I misunderstood you and that you meant something else.

How have Epic and GOG been faring?