Well, you find it right because you like the fact that your vote is worth n times more than the vote of those you oppose. Were the situation reversed, you'd find that a pretty bad arrangement.
Do you know the traditional method of cutting a cake in two perfectly balanced parts? Person A gets to cut it in two however they want. Person B chooses which slice goes to whom. Is it any wonder Person A dislikes it, and would pretty much prefer to both cut it and select which slice goes to whom?
I see we went from feigned concern over consent to just open hypocrisy. Telling, and a very appropriate representation of American policy. I wonder why your global power is waning?
Those with power setting the rules is the way the world worked long before America. It never changed nor could it, as anyone with power would eventually tire of being told how to live
I think you are desperately trying to universalize the particular as a way to reconcile the two conflicting ideological frames you're trying to uphold, and I think your country exhibits the same ideological crisis.
As a simple counterexample to this universalism, think of the European Union. Germany and France could impose their will on smaller neighbors (and did, in less enlightened times!), but they don't, because y'know, they actually believe in rule of law, consent and consensus.
Or as an example closer to home - the Canada / US relationship before recent American aggression.
Things don't have to work by unilateral aggression. It is a specific ideological choice, it is not a law of nature. Now I understand it might feel different while enveloped in said ideology (it literally determines what we perceive to be possible after all!), the same way a Muslim fanatic would attribute everything to Allah's plan, but I'm not really interested in self-justifications.
My dude, Hungary being fined by the club it signed up for makes your point only if your point was that the library dominates you with their late return fees. Not only did Hungary consent to these rules, it could've at any point withdrawn consent through Article 50.
Additionally, this is from 2024, Hungary has since democratically elected a government on the express platform of getting rid of the wannabe dictator that got them fined.
You've mistaken the mere existence of enforcement for domination, just like you keep mistaking ideological preference for natural law.
Also notice the words you used: "attempting self-determination". Weren't you just making the point that might makes right? In that view, Brussels has the power, Hungary doesn't, News at 11, yada yada.
But nobody actually lives by "might makes right", you included. As soon as its somebody you're sympathetic to, the cold realism drops and we're back to consent and sovereignty. That is my point. It's just a line people use to defend power arrangements they like, to be dropped for ones they don't.
Linking to a straight LLM generated article where the first couple entries (the only ones I bothered to read) are about keystealers on users' computers doesn't help your case.
I believe that for every joule of electricity used, 4 or 4.1 joules are pumped from the environment into the water. This is contrast to conventional water heaters which are bounded by an efficiency of 1, where, for example, burning gas directly heats the water with some heat leaking into the environment instead of the water.
For a _gas_ heater, 1 would actually be unrealistically good. Conventional gas boilers tend to be about 70% efficient. Condenser boilers can do better, up to about 90%, but in practice performance is highly dependent on temperature of returning water.
reply