nicerdicer @ nicerdicer @feddit.org

Posts

36

Comments

517

Joined

1 yr. ago

Primary source

Unfortunately, EU can't kick out contries that go completely against EU values.

Knauf. They produce drywall boards, among other building materials. You probably dwell a home where these products are built in. Excerpt from linked Wikipedia article:

In 2022, after the invasion of Ukraine by Russia, Yale University published a list of companies that chose to remain active in Russia. According to this report, over 600 companies have withdrawn from Russia — but some remain. Knauf is still operating across 14 sites in Russia but has claimed to have suspended new investments.[5].
In November 2023 Ukraine listed Knauf as an International Sponsor of War for promoting mobilisation in Russia by sending its employees to the war against Ukraine.[6].
According to German public-service broadcaster ARD, Knauf has been active in collaborating with the Russian military in its construction efforts in the Russian-occupied areas of Ukraine.[7][8]

Another source (German), 2024 states, that due to investigation of a news outlet, they allegedly withdrew their actions.

Withdrawal in response to ARD investigation?
Only recently, the plaster company from Lower Franconia hit the headlines because of its activities in Russia: Research by the ARD magazine “Monitor” suggested that Knauf had violated EU sanctions against Russia. Whether the withdrawal from Russia is connected to the allegations made was neither confirmed nor denied by the company to BR24 today and a press spokeswoman did not wish to comment on the matter in response to a written request.

They probably wanted to have a foot in the door when it comes to rebuilding, when the war will be over finally.

Another, probably more known company is Claas, a manufacturer of farming equipment like combine harvesters and such. Another source (German), 2023 claims

The company condemns Russia's attack on Ukraine, said Mohr. Nevertheless, Claas cannot and does not want to withdraw from one of the world's most important agricultural regions. “Both countries are enormously important for feeding the world's population. That's why farming must continue there,” Mohr told the SZ newspaper, adding that harvesting machines were essential for this.

Yes, all these email services want you to pay up for them. I think this is the price tag for privacy.

I have switched to Mailbox org a couple of years ago. I had a freemail provider before that. Unfortunately, this providers' data got leaked, and therefore I got pwned, luckily only resulting into a tsunami of spam. The entry-tier with Mailbox is 1 € per month (= 12 € per year) which is compareably cheap in my opinion. Of course, it depends on what features you desire - more features cost more money. They also offer a free trial for 30 days (but it is wise to start the free trial at the begin of a month, as far as I recall).

The process of switching the email provider took me at least 6 months, where both the old and the new email adress have to exist simulatiously.

If you need to register quickly to an online service, i can recommend Temp-Mail org. Its free, but you need to have the tab opened for the registration process, as all data (including the free temporary email adress) will be deleted once the tab is closed. I used this service to register with my home instance, because back then I didn't want to expose my real email adress.

First of all - don't overthink it! There are so many factors that play into this whole ordeal that a single person can't change. As other posters have said: Not all is bad. Always keep in mind that on the internet, these things seem to be much more dire than they are.

When it comes to the things I described in my post: Try to buy consciously. Assess if you really need the thing (example: If you alredy own a laptop and a smartphone - is there really a need for a tablet?). Try to buy things that last longer. Most products come in basically three price ranges: cheap, mid-price, overly priced. On most occasions it is sufficient to go with the mid-price range. This mostly offers the best price-performance-ratio. If you buy cheap you buy twice in the end (first for the cheap thing, then for the more expensive version that you should have bought to begin with). If you buy overly priced you probably are wasting money for a thing that could have been cheaper in the first place.

If you are not satisfied with digital services, then leave them for an alternative. For instance, I was unsatisfied with my bank. They tried to pull something off, thinking I will put up with it. I did some research and now I have changed my bank, even with better conditions than before. It was easier than I thought. The same goes with email providers or phone providers. If they enshittify their service for you, go to their competitor. Nowadays you can port your phone number with you. Companies are accounting for their users' laziness. That is why they can pull shit off in the first place.

When it comes to computers and operating systems, there is something you can do already: Go through all your settings and switch off all things you don't need (e.g. telemetry data, uninstall programs you do not use). If you don't know what a specific setting does or if it is needed, just look it up on the internet. Chances are great that at least one other person on this planet has the same question (that has been answered hopefully).
If your computer reaches its end-of-life, because the upcoming operating system is not compatible any longer, try to look out for an alternative. With a Linux-bases operating system, your old hardware might get some extra years to come. I think these have come a long way. 25 years ago I experienced myself with Linux, and it was awful! That might have changed now, and especially here on Lemmy there are many resources and users happy to help.

Try to use alternative programs, perferrably free- and open source. Or, alternatively, look out for programs that you can buy once and that do not operate as a subscription service. If you own a program legally (by having it bought once), it can't be taken away from you. When you subscribe to a program, companies always can take features away or make you pay more for them. This also applies for media as well.

With these things taken into consideration, you will feel less powerless and a bit more in control of things. And it probably will save you money in the long run.

Additional to that I believe that the car industry had a say in the design of EV charging infrastructure. When you go to a normal gas station, you can pay with any of the already established payment methods (e.g. cash, credit card etc). But when you want to charge your EV at a charging station, you have to register with the energy provider beforehand in order to use it. This is an additional hassle to convince people of overthinking their decision to switch to an EV.

You can't pay with the established payment methods at a charging station - at least, in my region.

You should look into this

The root source of things being shit nowadays is capitalism. Capitalism only nows one direction: upwards. Each quarter profits have to exceed the preceding quarter. The result is that products and services get worse over time, because in order to make more profit than the last time, corners have to be cut.

The new iteration of a product gets more flimsy, because they use cheaper materials, or they alter the design to save on material. Or products have a built-in life span (e.g. batteries that cannot be replaced or limited software updates or intentional software incompatibility).

When it comes to digital services, features will be stripped over time or the customer has to pay additionally for a feature that was once included. Or they arbitrarily limit the number of devices one can use the service on. They can do it, because most customers are not prone to change a specific online service, beacuse it either is a hassle or existing alternatives do not offer the same content diversity.

The same goes for operating systems, albeit they are rather not stripped of functions, but new bullshit features that no one asked for get implemented (best example is the implementation of AI features into the operating system (Windows - Copilot or Apple - Apple intelligence) that - in case of both - forces users to even replace their hardware). Tech companies know they can pull shit like this off, because (and this mostly applies to professional users) some users need to run specific niche software on their computers that is programmed for a specific OS exclusively.
The whole AI craze is just to make money (selling data) off of the user and also forcing them to buy the new thing, because tech companies took care of deliberately designing everything in a way that it is incompatible with older hardware.

One major problem with this is that, although capitalism is the cause of it all, we all grew up with capitalism and are stuck inside the system up to a point where we profit off of it in certain parts. Having the new shiny thing availiable at any time is the nice part of it. Having to work more for less compensation (because company already builds everything cheaper and now comes for your wages/ salary in order to make profit) is the disadvantage of it. There theoretically is a solution for it: Socialism. Theoretically, because it doesn't account for the desire of people to gain power over stuff and/ or other people.

Das passt auch ganz gut:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UYSqjpBbykA

True, but the problems remain the same: No matter, how you hide out, what do these billionaires do when they have to fix issues? Who do they call when someting breaks? In a bunker, the water supply or the air filter can break. You need someone to repair it. Also, you need spare parts. On a boat a sail can get torn in a storm, or the engine could fail. Depending on the apolyptical setting, going to a harbor might not be an option. Here also, spare parts are needed.

What all these methods of locking away oneself have in common is, that this can be only for a rather short period of time, preferrably, as long as your supplies last. When being in a bunker or on a boat for, let's say a month only, these assholes will even call it an adventure. But these billionaires assume that they can survive for years.

Stellt euch mal vor, ihr flüchtet aus Syrien oder Somalia und auf eurer wahrhafitg beschwerlichen Reise - denn dort, wo ihr hinwollt, erwartet euch niemand - begegnet ihr wohlstandsverwahrlosten Reality-Show-Teilnehmern, die mit Kamera und Security begleitet "Flüchtling" spielen.
Selbstverständlich endet das einmonatige Abenteuer für die Teilnehmer dort, wo sie angefangen haben - mit einem Dach über dem Kopf und einem gefüllten Konto in einer sicheren Umgebung. Und das ist letztendlich das, was die Reality-Show-Teilnehmer von Leuten unterscheidet, die um ihr Leben fliehen! Der Flüchtling kommt, wenn er genug Glück hat, mittellos an seinem Ziel an, da er für die Finanzierung der Flucht sein Haus und sein Hab und Gut verkaufen musste.

Also für mich hat diese Show schon einen negativen Beigeschmack. Diese Art von Sozialvoyeurismus ist um Längen schlimmer, als Hartz IV-Empfängern beim Tabak stopfen zuzusehen.

Nicht zuletzt dadurch, dass hier einigen Rassisten (ich vermute, dass der Sender nicht lange nach Kandidaten mit solcher Gesinnung suchen musste) eine Plattform geboten wird und hauptsächlich deren Sinneswandel porträtiert wird.

"Ich würde Landminen legen und jedes mit Migranten gefüllte Boot, das sich diesem Strand nähert, in die Luft jagen." So stellt sich Dave zu Beginn der Reality-Show "Go back to where you came from" des öffentlich-rechtlichen Fernsehsenders Channel Four als Teilnehmer vor. Migranten seien wie Ungeziefer, fügt er hinzu.

Zumindest die Teilnehmer hat ihre Reise überzeugt. Dave, der anfangs noch Flüchtlingsboote in die Luft sprengen wollte, gelobt am Ende, Migranten in den Pub einzuladen, auf ein Pint Bier, Fish und Chips. Wenn es nach ihm gehe, seien sie in Großbritannien willkommen.

Additional to that - what is a bunker worth when you can't reach it? I think those super-rich people who build bunkers in remote places watched too many movies and didn't think it through.

Here is an article about his book from 2022. I think I have read this in the past, but I coduln't remember his name. What stuck to me was this:

In the end (so to speak) billions of dollars can only take these guys so far, anyway. “Why do you think they’re gonna protect you after your money is worthless?” Rushkoff remembers asking his billionaire desert hosts of their private security forces. From there, the men began grasping at straws. “At that point, it was shock collars and guard dogs and combinations to the safes,” he says of their last resorts.

Ja das ist schon echt absurd, was heute so für Autos (die in den meisten Fällen doch eh nur eine Person transportieren) herumfahren. Und ich finde schon so einen alten Mercedes groß.

Nicht nur, dass die Autos höher sind (mit den Folgen, die du beschrieben hast), sie sind auch breiter - allerdings nur untenrum: Viele SUV, gerade solche, die noch als "kompakt" vermarktet werden, haben eine Fahrgastzelle, die in etwa so groß wie die eines Kleinwagens ist. Man sitzt also genau so dicht zusammen wie in einem Kleinwagen. Alles unterhalb der Seitenscheiben aber ist nach aussen ausgestellt, so dass die dicken Reifen noch unter der Karosserie verschwinden.

Hier mal der Vergleich von Mitte Fahrersitz zu Mitte Beifahrersitz. Der Volvo-SUV ist zwar ein paar Zentimeter breiter, groß ist Unterschied aber nicht zwischen den Sitzabständen beider Wagen. Insgesamt jedoch ist der Volvo breiter.

Durch die geografische Lage haben wir eigentlich ziemlich stabile Wetterverhältnisse (auch wenn Extreme aufgrund der fortschreitenden Erderwärmung zunehmen) und keine größeren Naturkatastrophen, wie z.B. Hurrikans, Tsunamis, Blizzards mit zweistelligen Minusgraden über mehrere Wochen, Vulkanausbrüche und schwere Erdbeben (solche, die ganze Städte in Schutt und Asche legen).

unterschätztes Feature

Ähnlich viele befürworten, dass Firmen Betriebswohnungen zur Verfügung stellen

Das ist ja so ein Punkt, den ich etwas bedenklich finde, da dies die Verhandlungsposition eines Arbeitnehmers deutlich verschlechtern kann. Was ist, wenn man den Job verliert? Dann wird man wahrscheinlich zügig ausziehen müssen. Wie gestaltet sich das mit der Miete? Wird diese aus Gründen der Convenience direkt vom Lohn oder Gehalt einbehalten? Bereichert sich der Arbeitgeber womöglich daran? Welchen Handlungsspielraum hat ein Mieter dann, wenn es darum geht, Mietminderungen aufgrund nicht durchgeführter Reparaturen (z.B. Heizungsausfall über einen längeren Zeitraum) durchzusetzen?

Wir brauchen einfach mehr Wohnraum, der erschwinglich ist, und der nicht an eine Arbeitsanstellung geknüpft ist.

how convenient is the side access

I barely use it, as I think that the zipper is the weakest part here. I one used it while packing for a trip. I forgot my socks and the side access allowed me to put them inside the backpack without having to unpack everything.

The mangets on the main lid are holding up well - if they connect in the first place. These magnets are rather long and thin. I think they are made this way to allow the magnets to still align when the backpack ist filled (and thus expands in the upper part). It depends on what and how youl fill up the backpack.
Here are photos of said magnet:

can it hold a gym bag inside it (shoe, shorts, tshirt, gloves) comfortably?

I haven't tried shoes, but I assume yes. Gym shorts and also a t-shirt are not a problem, even a towel (not one of those beach towels tho) should fit in there.

As a comparison: I went on a 4 day trip with that backpack, and besides my laptop, charger, mouse and a power bank I managed to fit in 4 unterpants, 4 pair of socks, 2 polo shirts, 1 pullover, 1 pair of pants, 1 t-shirt and my toilettery bag. The backpack was filled up then - a towel couldn't be fit in, but I was travelling with a car anyway. Of course, packing it with these items is a bit of a tetris game.

I hope this helps in your decision.

Ich erhebe Daten über den Verbrauch meines Autos. Ich mache es nur, weil es geht. Ich finde es insofern hilfreich, weil ich dann sehen kann, welche Kosten (Benzinkosten) so über die Zeit verteilt auflaufen, und ich erhoffe mir dadurch, dass ich entsprechende Maßnahmen ergreifen kann, wenn z.B. der Benzinverbrauch signifikant abweicht (abgesehen von der üblichen Sommer - Winter-Abweichung), um höhere Reparaturkosten zu vermeiden. Auch den Verlauf der Benzinkosten habe ich dann im Überblick, obwohl man daran nichts beeinflussen kann. Interessanterweise kann man bei der Entwicklung des Benzinpreises auch politische Ereignisse erkennen.

Durchschnittsverbrauch l/100 km

Benzinpreis in €

Sounds like this guy, who did something similar. He was convicted in 2015 to a life in prison. It went all over the news back then.

Other than having a quiet shift, he wanted to put himself into the role of the hero who safed the patients, as far as I recall. In order to do this, he manipulated the patients' medication and thus, a medical emergency was provoked, where he steps in and saves the patients' life. But it went wrong oftentimes and the patients died. That's how they got onto him.