They're making it as a transpiler to their dialect of C++. On other OS it can also work because they have the Serenity Browser engine running on Linux. So probably take some parts of the build chain there and off you go.
Seems very weird to me. Where's the difference between me using a Photoshop plugin that generates some parts of the image and me using Stable Diffusion that generates some parts of the image? How do you know how much of the image was generated and how much was created by my own hand in Photoshop? What if I have Stable Diffusion as Photoshop plugin?
What ballot box? I can't vote about the Commission... It was chosen by a vote of ministers but that minister was actually from a opposition party here! This """democratic""" system is broken. And my vote about the EU Parliament affects only 2% of the total seats.
The Comission is nominated by the European Council - made up of the heads of government/state of the member states, which are usually democratically elected in some way - presumably your vote can influence who 1 particular member of the European Council is.
Then, the nomination of the Comission and individual comissioners are validated or not by the European Parliament, whose members are again chosen democratically in every member state.
So, while it is quite indirect, our vote does influence the membership of the comission.
Of course, as in any such system, the more direct way of gaining some kind of influence is to try to organize others to vote a certain way, to participate yourself, or to organize others to campaign together to directly convince/shame the members of the Comission or Parliament or Council to take particular policies.
As I said, the member was from an opposition party. Nobody of the population wanted them in the government in the first place, they were there due to a background deal. The EU makes people who nobody voted for too powerful.
> Then, the nomination of the Comission and individual comissioners are validated or not by the European Parliament, whose members are again chosen democratically in every member state.
No, each member state votes about their own portion of seats. So Germany and France decides for everyone. That's shit. Germans go crazy anti-science and everybody pays - except the Germans who get the EU to find solution out of the money it takes from all states.
> No, each member state votes about their own portion of seats. So Germany and France decides for everyone.
Seats in the European Parliament are apportioned based on population (with some rounding to allow a maximum of 751 MEPs), so it is about as close to democratic as possible. Also, France and Germany have ~24% of the total seats, how exactly are they deciding for everyone?
It's really not democratic at all. Democratic would be if we all voted about all seats. How am I supposed to change anything ever if I vote about 2% of the seats? Sorry not sorry for being born where I was.
> how exactly are they deciding for everyone?
That's easy - by building the largest cohesive blocs. The rest is divided to small bickering parties with just a few seats each (often just one each), and easy to conquer.
Assuming your country is roughly 2% of the EU's population, why would you expect your influence to be much higher than ~2% of the European Parliament?
In fact, having allocated seats for each country is bending pure democracy towards giving more power to small countries than they would otherwise have. In a purely democratic system, a small country would often not even get 1 seat, unless it was extraordinarily well organized (assume every person in the EU had a chance to vote for each of the 751 MEPs - then, even if your country was voting 100% with the same politician for every seat, they would affect 2% of each vote).
> That's easy - by building the largest cohesive blocs. The rest is divided to small bickering parties with just a few seats each (often just one each), and easy to conquer.
Nothing stops politicians from the smaller countries to also form a bloc. The fact that our politicians (I'm also a national of a smaller / less powerful EU country, Romania) are prone to bickering and not much else is a different problem entirely.
Take your pick. Your local government, your national government, or your European government all have an aggregate effect on national an international energy policy, even if that impact is not direct.
If you have a better idea what it means to be "held responsible" I'm happy to hear it.
What does it have to do with the US? This is about the EU only. The EU only put all focus on "green" energy and then tried to solve the problems it created with fossil fuels while forgetting about or even actively working against nuclear. What the US did has nothing to do with that.
The EU put focus on replacing coal with natural gas, as that was the cheapest way of reaching their emission goals. Similar reductions would have been far more expensive with renewables or nuclear. Economics beat geopolitics, because the dominant ideology in the EU is using regulated markets to achieve policy goals.
This year geopolitics struck back and made the rational economic choice a poor one in retrospect.
It was never a rational economic choice, everybody in the eastern EU knew this is coming. While we were sounding the alarms and pointing to Georgia in 2008, Westerners were busy mashing "reset buttons" with uncle Putin. Not even 2014 invasion to Ukraine changed their minds and now they act surprised?
You could've simply read the official Russian doctrine. "oil is for profits, gas is for political control" - they even published it on the web FFS.
"Rational" does not mean "smart", "good", or "beneficial to the society".
It was the choice businesses made, because they believed it was the best way to make profit in the energy market. The EU agreed on emission quotas and set up the emission trade system, in order to let the market choose how to reduce emissions. The market chose natural gas, and the politicians allowed that, because they believed in the wisdom of the market.
I don't believe that for a minute - since now the market is choosing nuclear the moment the EU allowed it to be considered green. We were waiting for it for a decade with projects in hand and now there are entire new reactors being built, all so suddenly. Experts from my country were lobbying for that at least since 2008. The EU commission has chosen feels instead of evidence and nobody will ever pay for that - except Ukrainians with their lives and poorer Europeans with their savings.
And BTW this isn't just about the market - our state wanted to support nuclear but the EU sued it for unfair competition. Oh no, the German electricity producers might make less profit from their Russian gas, what would we do?!?!?
> The EU only put all focus on "green" energy and then tried to solve the problems it created with fossil fuels while forgetting about or even actively working against nuclear.
I'm not sure that's true. The EU (25%) as a whole has more nuclear energy than the US (19%). About half of EU countries use nuclear power, keeping in mind almost half of EU countries have less people than Massachusetts.
Remember, the EU doesn't generally run energy policy. The individual countries do. If anything, it was a lack of commitment to green energy that led to this.
The EU assigns money it takes from the states - money the pro-nuclear states would've used for their nuclear energy, but since it was appropriated by the EU and then assigned by its own rules that were constructed to rule out nuclear energy, they couldn't. So our pro-nuclear state has huge fields of solar arrays that everybody here hates because it replaced natural parks and makes us more reliant on gas powerplants, and the our/EU money was taken by gangsters, we call them the "solar barons" - great, thanks EU.
For France (and I imagine it's similar for other countries), EU contributions are a smidgen under 1% of GDP. I can't imagine that makes the decisive difference here. And in any case, since the EU still gets more of its energy from nuclear than the US does they'd be doing a piss-poor job of it.
In fact, looking at the figures, the only countries worldwide that get more energy from nuclear than the EU _and_ aren't part of the EU are Ukraine (55%), South Korea (28%), Switzerland (29%), and Armenia (25%). And both Switzerland and Ukraine are synchronised with the greater European grid!
My Galaxy S2 still works, it even has decent battery life (at least a day). But would I want to use it? No. I like technological improvements. I buy a new phone because I want new capabilities - and that's bound to its computing performance. If I wanted to just call and send SMS, I would've kept using my Sony Ericsson from 2007, that one also still works flawlessly.
Most people I know - techies or not, even the grandmas - have drawers full of working phones. Clearly longevity is not the problem.
When they are shut down they are not working. I would like to see some statistics about how many phones make it to 10 years. (dendrites growing). I shall also chech my phones in the basement before they catch fire :)
P. S. Don't bother with Children of the Sky