Are German prisons as scary as US (from what I’ve seen on TV) prisons or South African Prisons?

Nope, not even close from what I hear about the US prison system. It still sucks obviously and we just had a scandal in Augsburg where inmates have been tortured (beatings, not enough water provided, forced to stay naked, sleep on the floor etc).

Alerta! Alerta! I’m a barista!

The bigger issues that we care about are things like going bankrupt from getting sick or injured. Those issues are directly caused by their CEOs.

I think that depends very much on where you live. Here in Germany we don’t usually go bankrupt from getting sick. I at least worry much more about the climate catastrophe or right wing propaganda on social media. Issues that in a funny coincidence are also caused directly by CEOs.

That probably depends on which constitution you’re talking about ;)

But I wonder if “for-profit organization may not use recommendation algorithms” would be constitutional in e.g. EU countries.

I get the sentiment that the Russian people are responsible for their government. But repression in Russia goes far beyond “a couple of arrests and beatdowns” - they are openly killing people, torturing them, putting them in labor camps and throwing them behind bars for years or decades for very minor stuff.

You are much quicker to attack the OP, the article, me than the commissioner.

OP makes a claim, I asked for a source. That’s not an attack.

And how is on the other hand “he is very wrong with this statement (addendum: and in his job)” and “shitty and besides the point of any valid criticism,” and “he obviously tried to weasle himself out of his shit take” not an “attack” against the commissioner?

edit: anyway, I have spend enough time on this.

Thanks!

I think “vorgeblich” has some more nuance, as it does not say the claim is necessarily wrong (https://de.wiktionary.org/wiki/vorgeblich). But like I said in the other sub-thread: he is very wrong with this statement (addendum: and in his job). It’s still a different picture than one might imagine when hearing “German government officials are deciding whether you are jewish enough” (which you didn’t write, but apparently was understood like that by other commenters).

Your reading is very generous to him.

Probably. My point is that I was very confused by the original claim (officials deciding whether people are jewish or not) and the following comments drawing comparisons to Nazi Germany.

I don’t have time to learn German to read your source, in an English based discussion.

Understandable. But when the discussion is about German law, German sources are to be expected.

It is not relevant that it is wrong.

If it’s not relevant, then why quote it? In any case it tells me something about the quality of the article.

The commissioner tried to use it to defend his position that they are ostensibly Jewish. Actually being wrong makes it worse as he should know better or he is lying.

Yes, as I said: the “Jewishness” of the people should not matter when you’re attacking their arguments. And yes, he is very obvioulsy trying to defend this instead of admitting that he shouldn’t have said that.

Thanks. So he explicitely was not talking about whether individual persons are jewish or not.

Instead he was questioning if an organisation (that mobilized to a “Glory to the resistance” demonstration on 7th of October 2024) is actually involving a significant amount of people from jewish communities. Which is still shitty and besides the point of any valid criticism, but also different from trying to decide if individual people are jewish or not. And he obviously tried to weasle himself out of his shit take.

The last paragraph is factually wrong though. There are religious communities who are Öffentlich-rechtliche Religionsgesellschaften, but you don’t have to adhere to these regulations.

It’s not a source for a quote if the quote does not show up in the link.

edit: the fact that this gets downvoted really says a lot about the quality of the discussion :D

Ctrl+F didn’t turn up any results for your quote (“alleged”/“allegedly”) , and I’m not going to read the whole article searching for what you might have meant instead.

Do you have sources?

Phil Ochs - Knock on the Door

If you were born in 1976 or earlier, your birthday is closer to the production of the Ford Model T than it is to today. Have a nice day :)

a whole new category of content, which is AI generated or AI summarized content or kind of existing content pulled together by AI in some way,

Good to know that they really have thought it through. Reminds me of the kind of user story our project manager writes.

Higher yes, significantly not necessarily.

Didn’t they stop trying at some point because they didn’t want him to be replaced by someone competent?

Super green!

the storm surge could be up to 15 feet

It’s probably because of the last sentence. Which technically is a fact (because they obviously think that), but 5m is something at least cities in northern Germany are usually prepared for.