Except in 2 of the 4 graphs, young men are still more liberal-leaning and in Germany it’s only barely conservative leaning. What they all have in common however is young women becoming extremely liberal-leaning. The headline in other words is misleading.

I mean, $2k is about okay for a month of labour in much of the world

Most companies with specific dei reporting in my country started because of political pressure via us investors to begin with.

HR is a scam - if you’ve an issue go to your union rep instead, that’s why we have them. If you live in a country w/o them, get some.

There won’t be anybody to save our asses if the Ukrainians tire of sending their young into the Russian meat grinder - supporting them, and preparing ourselves means SPENDING ON DEFENSE. That’s not to mention how dependent we’ve become on China for all things manufactured and the US for all things software.

Oh, and for the record, Belgium has the 8th highest per capita consumption emissions in the world, so maybe focus on your own politicians before whining about us 😑

Y’know - maybe we should take both into consideration, maybe?

Source of their statement:

https://www.naturvardsverket.se/data-och-statistik/klimat/vaxthusgaser-nettoutslapp-och-nettoupptag-fran-markanvandning/

OK let’s have a look at how the development of land use emissions compared to the ideological alignment of governments during the same time period… :

So, in short, during blue periods during the last 15 years (right wing governments) land use co2 absorption has been mostly static and during the red periods (left wing governments) land use co2 absorption almost halved (57.8 Mtonnes of CO2-equivalents in 2014 --> 33.6 Mtonnes in 2022).

This doesn’t really seem to line up with the narrative of reduction in absorption being a problem caused by a right wing government.

Instead, from what I’ve gathered when speaking to people in the forestry business it’s rather a question of reduced growth due to drier summers as well as losses due to bug infestations and forest fires. The other half of the puzzle is massively increased electricity prices becoming a demand driver for fuel wood as a method of offsetting the periods with both highest electricity prices and highest demand (wintertime), which in turn was caused by premature shutdowns of nuclear power plants for political reasons.

They did cut the amount of biofuels in both diesel & gasoline however, which accounts for most of the 7% emissions increase, though it is debatable whether the actual emissions benefits of biofuels match the on-paper benefits. Furthermore, fuel costs had become a primary cost driver in inflation, this slashed fuel fuel prices from amongst the highest in the EU to amongst the lowest.

It also means that Sweden risks being in violation of a range of EU agreements, including the union’s Nature Restoration Law, Deforestation Regulation (EUDR) and Land Use, Land-Use Change, and Forestry (LULUCF) Regulation.

From what I’ve read these regulations were drafted based on how forests are handled in continental Europe (where there is basically none) with little to no regard for how forestry has been handled for centuries in northern Europe. The reason that our forests remain is that they are productive - these regulations threaten the Nordic forestry model fundamentally.

doesn’t take into account emissions from land use changes

Sweden has negative emissions from land use changes - largely thanks to our healthy forestry practices compared to other countries.

manufacturing emissions have been offshored away

I agree, it’s a massive shame. This is why countries with good enviromental regulations need to make an effort to bring manufacturing back under our own jurisdiction where it can be done cleanly & efficiently. Still, even accounting for this Sweden is doing well compared to other developed nations.

Our commitments were made in an entirely different realpolitik environment, before the pandemic and the war in Ukraine.

Swedish gdp per capita has been stagnant for several years with significant real wage decline, particularly for low to lower mid-income households - an estimated 6.5-16.5% decline since pre pandemic levels in 2019, only starting to properly recover in the past year or so.

Simultaneously there’s increasing healthcare costs tied to an aging population, massive needs to increase defence spending (1% of GDP in 2019, 2.4% currently, 5% goal) as well as significant and increasing societal economic losses from crime.

Something has had to budge and this is, unfortunately, one of those things. Work continues albeit at a lower priority.

Make no mistake. Sweden is still and will continue to be leagues ahead of most developed nations, and does really well even compared to the global average. Compared to a Swede, the average human has a carbon footprint 26% larger, European 50% larger, German 90% larger, Chinese 126% larger and each of y’all americans emit almost as much as 4 Swedes put together on average.

Meanwhile google slapped me with nine captchas to fill out a form like wtf?

I’m rather surprised that ingredient entropy did not account for continuity of the ingredients. Having too high continuity would end up in “not salads” (hamburgers, pizza, sandwich) whilst too low would put you into puré, sauce and definitely soup/beverage territory. Whilst there is a subset of soups/beverages/salads that have a similar degree of soupiness, outside of that subset you’ll find degrees of soupiness that are undisputably not soup and undisputably not salad.

There are plenty of things that Americans, in general, actually agree on. As much as the expression is disliked, there is a broad center that endorses at least moderate reform.

The problem is the fptp system that bundles people who are okay “just a little reform but not too much” with actual regressives, and people who actively support moderate reform with those too progressive for the “just a little” folks.

The end result is stagnation in popular issues due to the inflexibility of the electorate and enabling less democratic influences to dictate policy.

It’s possible to reduce the privacy issues by using APIs with a local frontend. Given that APIs usually cater to companies instead of end consumers they actually have simple opt-outs for information logging.

Requires a bit of know-how, and you’ll be paying for your llm per use (not that bad actually, I’ve personally averaged <10$/yr in api costs) but at least you get to have all your personal issues on your local device instead.

For a chatGPT-like experience you probably want the ooga booga web generation ui but there’s others too.

This person has had sixteen name changes. It’s frankly absurd.

Originally “Isabella Khatibi Ghabagh Tabeh”, born in Teheran. Currently “Fariba Juliette Jennifer Vancor”.

It’s a finnish gov:t newspaper reporting on a gov:t study.

Here’s the link:

https://www.ttl.fi/en/topical/press-release/the-benefits-of-remote-work-are-not-equally-distributed-impacts-vary-between-employee-groups

Just for the record, even in Italy the winter tires are required for the season (but we can just have chains on board and we are good).

Double checking and it doesn’t seem like it? Then again I don’t live in Italy. Here in Sweden you’ll face a fine of ~2000kr (roughly 200€) per tire on your vehicle that is out of spec.

https://www.europe-consommateurs.eu/en/travelling-motor-vehicles/motor-vehicles/winter-tyres-in-europe.html

Granted that you need to write a more complex law, but in the end it is nothing impossible.

…and thus it is much simpler to handle these kinds of regulations at a lower level. No need for everyone everywhere to agree, people can have rules that work for them where they live, folks are happier and don’t have to struggle against a system run by bureaucrats so far away they have no idea what reality on the ground is (and they can’t, it’s impossible to account for every scenario centrally). Even on a municipal level certain regulations differ, and that’s completely ok!

An EU directive has no effect in Italy unless a law that acknowledges it is enacted. True, we must write a law that implement the directive but it is not an automatism.

This is exactly what I wrote in the comment you replied to, albeit with different wording? Basically the only other options if the nation does not want to comply is: a) suffering punitive actions from the EU indefinitely or until they comply or b) leaving the EU.

This is obviously subjective depending on what you want to achieve with your llm, but “Bad” data in that it showcases the opposite of what is desirable output. Think bunk conspiracies, hostility, deception, racism, religious extremism etc.

Interesting - I can sort of intuit why it might help. Feeding the model bad data and instructing training it to identify it as such would be advantageous compared to being entirely unaware of it.

That depends on what you mean by integrate. There are many clear examples where it makes no sense to enforce homogenous legislation. Europe is a big place, and it makes sense to have different systems in different places.

Take tires for instance - in the Scandinavian countries we require winter tires for the season, something which would make no sense in Italy for instance.

The EU is one entity, consisting of several member states. Just like my own country consists of many regions and municipalities with their own elected officials.

Member states are forced to comply with legislation passed by the EU, even if a majority of the citizens of a state do not want to implement it. Technically there are two other options - sufferimg massive fines and punitive actions by the EU, or leaving. I’d rather not have to endure either of those, so instead I complain, loudly, online, to politicians, MPs and MEPs.