oce 🐆

In many European countries, there’s no American style free speech, there are laws that forbid some contents, such as racism, sexism and lgbtq-hate. People get fined and associations are dissolved because of it frequently.
I understand the argument for not letting a government control speech, because it seems against democratic. But when you see what’s happening to the USA where about half the voters are voting for someone who wants to undermine its democracy, attack women, the poor and the minorities, maybe you would think that the impact of free hate speech on democracy can be destructive.

This a French scientific study showing how the Russian regime tries to influence the political debate in France with Twitter accounts, especially before the last parliamentary elections. The goal is to promote a party that is more favorable to them, namely, the far right. https://hal.science/hal-04629585v1/file/Chavalarias_23h50_Putin_s_Clock.pdf

In France, we have a concept called the “Republican front” that is kind of tacit agreement between almost all parties, left, center and right, to work together to prevent far-right from reaching power and threaten the values of the French Republic. This front has been weakening at every election, with the far right rising and lately some of the traditional right joining them. But it still worked out at the last one, far right was given first by the polls, but thanks to the front, they eventually ended up 3rd.

What this article says, is that the Russian regime has been working for years to invert this front and push most parties to consider that it is part of the left that is against the Republic values, more than the far right.
One of their most cynical tactic is using videos from the Gaza war to traumatize leftists until they say something that may sound antisemitic. Then they repost those words and push the agenda that the left is antisemitic and therefore against the Republican values.

A big reason is India is getting cheaper Russian gas and oil since Europe has stopped or lowered its imports.

Except for her monumental mistake of giving up on nuclear and consequently giving enough leverage to Putin to finance his imperialist plans peacefully.

How fucking cool is it to have a woman IPCC scientist as your president?

Could you quote the articles? I read them and couldn’t find the data that backs your claim. But maybe I missed it. As the person making the claim, it is your job to demonstrate it.

Ok, I got time to read it. Drones are only mentioned in one paragraph of the conclusion. Here it is:

‘Eco-friendly’ fireworks, which do not use perchlorate and have lower levels of heavy metals, do exist (Fan et al. 2021); the problem lies in their higher cost of manufac- turing (Palaneeswari and Muthulakshmi 2012). The future of ‘firework’ displays may lie in the use of drones or unmanned aerial vehicles. Drones and visible-wavelength lasers for light shows have the benefit of being reusable, have no emissions, and are quiet (Daukantas 2010; Zerlenga et al. 2021). Drones come with their own issues for wildlife, however, usually flying at low altitudes where there are most likely to come into contact with wildlife; a review indicated that many taxa react negatively to the presence of a drone (Rebolo-Ifrán et al. 2019). Even so, drone light shows are less likely to disturb animals, wild or domestic, with noise, nor do they deposit large amounts of pollutants.

The use of drones is an opening hypothesis, not the subject of the study. Impact of drones is not quantified, it is hypothesized to be lower. The linked papers that I have also checked also don’t quantify the impact but similarly mention it as a potential eco-friendly alternative.

Would you have a different reading of this article?

My mistake, I read the abstract too fast and too late, let me read it and get back to you.

No you don’t, that’s for fireworks, now we need the impact of drone shows to answer the problem. Would you have it?

Edit: I was wrong, it does mention drones.
Edit2: After proper reading. It only mentions it as an opening hypothesis in its conclusion. It does not quantify the impact of drones, which is what we need to understand if they are actually more eco-friendly.

Absolutely, fireworks also have emission in their while life cycle, so let’s get the data and compare. EVs are not zero emission and offsetting is not zeroing emission, it’s just compensation, pollution is still being produced and if everyone does that we will not reduce it. In fact EVs sometimes have higher emissions than thermic card at fabrication, but it has been demonstrated that they emit less during their full lifecycle.

I am not saying they are better. I am questioning if they are. Please don’t mistake my question as veiled disagreement, I am not a Xitter user. Someone claimed an objective opinion, and that supposed to have data and a study to back it, but there likely isn’t any yet. I am open to the possibility, I just want to make sure it is actually more ecological. It is objectively demonstrated for electric cars vs thermic cars, for fireworks vs drone show, it probably isn’t yet.

Zero emission at use, not at fabrication, probably not when recharging and not as electronic waste at the end. Yes, I am being serious, considering only emission during usage is a very limited view of what carbon footprint is. A view that is often used by companies for green washing. Do you also believe electric cars are zero emissions? Considering full life, knowing which one emits more is not trivial.

Objectively, so you have some data to back it up? Do you have the comparative carbon footprint of those shows?

Parent comment claims it would, so my questions refers to that.

Are drones really less pollution than fireworks?

Democracies will most likely always have flaws, I think it makes more sense to compare it to other systems in the same historical context than to apply a current vision of what a democracy should be.

Formally yes, but I believe that’s an (American English?) informal way of speaking where “nobody” actually means “anybody”. Similarly to how “I don’t need no man” means “I don’t need any man”.

I find 27⁰C comfortable when not moving at home.

🤔
Don’t = -1
Never = -1
Not = -1
-1 * -1 * -1 = -1
~ They don’t have to explain themselves for nobody.
So it’s the same comment.
Let me know if I have made a mistake.

Good point