Even if crime wasn't a problem, we should be allowed to protect our culture. Not every country needs to be like USA.

Culture always changes. The culture of your country has not been like this since the dawn of time. There is no good reason, why it should stay just the way it is right now, only because "that's the way it always has been" in your memory. Also if the newly arriving people make all of your felloelw countrypeople abandon their old ways, maybe their was something wrong with those traditions to begin with. If you are only worried because the new people will bring their own culture and stick to it, that just adds to the culture and doesn't take yours away.

And I'm not even sure why I have to defend myself.

I personally think one needs really good reasons if one chooses to defend xenophobic policies and puts millions of people under the general suspicion of spreading crime and violence while nearly all of them are just trying to get away from the war and violence in the countries where they are coming from.

Also many arxiv preprints

I'm on board with 'living on Mars makes no sense' at least until we really run out of space here, but we have much more pressing issues before that. But I doubt Venus being more suitable. The high atmospheric temperature of Venus (~460°C) is pretty harsh and it is much more easy to heat than to cool stuff down. The high pressure also makes getting there difficult with the hard entry. Mars at least has a similat rotation period to earth.

The key is to do both because they are principally coupled and nothing happens as long as consumers and corporations just point at each other and use it as an excuse to keep on going like before.

Of course you are right that the focus should lie at changing CO2 output at the producer side because the influence is much more focused there. N my opinion it is also dangerous arguing that the companies only supply what the consumers want because that statement is based on the consumption and is biased too much by what the companies offer and at which price. Consumers usually socioeconomically do not have the choice to buy a product at 1.5 times the price, even if they would prefer it for environmental reasons while these companies have immense profits and can and must afford to reduce and finally stop emissions.

To add to your last two paragraphs: even if the elected parties enact the more environmentally friendly policies, many voters will be unsatisfied with that because they imagined a solution would pop up where they themselves would not be required to make sacrifices. I imagine memes like this could be a reason for that as they imply that corporations emit greenhouse gases totally decoupled from the people's consumption. I fully demand that corporations take more actions to reduce emissions although it will lower their profits, but I also ask (mainly) the privileged people who live in the global north to accept necessary reductions in lifestyle and consumption as a necessary consequence.

Isn't that basically why laws need to be put in place ensuring that these high emitting companies (which are mostly from the global north) reduce their carbon emissions? The circumstances are often consequnce of ongoing western exploitation and they will just get worse if nothing is changed because it is not the rich countries which will suffer most from climate change.

That is just a slightly different projection of the hyper intelligent pandimensional beings which we call rats.

Is that actually what you are researching about? How would one make arbitrary photonic waveforms? Can one just use different monochromatic light sources and overlap them with adjusted phase shifts?

/c/unexpecteddouglasadams or sonething

I would say both. You need to learn by trying things out, making your own mistakes and finding a style. Then you get input from the outside world on why some peculiar structure make sense or just giving helpful tips. Then you try out more, apply those tips and see what works for you. But you can read as much helpful input as you want, it won't be any good without you trying to apply it and practice.

Was zur Hölle ist das denn für eine massive Manipulation? Gabs da einen Artikel zu? Die beiden Bilder zeichnen ja ein sehr extremes Bild, ohne irgendeinen Kontext anzugeben. Auch wenn ich mir nicht sicher bin, welcher Kontext diese Verzerrung relativieren würde, sind zwei jpgs für mich auch keine sonderlich zuverlässige Quelle.

That may be true for one particular flight but if all the people who fly only because "the plane is going anyway" stopped, I'm sure that would partially empty those planes enough that airlines would consider reducing the flights' frequency. But if anyone knows studies/arguments implying the opposite, I'd be very interested to hear them.

Zugegebenermaßen können Arbeitgeber zur Zeit auf Grund von Fachkräftemangel auch gar nicht so viele Leute einstellen wie sie wollen. Aber dann muss halt weniger produziert und weniger Wachstum generiert werden. Im Konsum zurückzutreten wäre eh überfällig.

Das wird sie jetzt schon, wobei die Diskussion wahrscheinlich erst gestern aufkam, nachdem alle Beteiligten diese Kommentarspalte lasen (sorry für n-tv-Link, war das erstbeste ohne Paywall): https://www.n-tv.de/politik/Bundesregierung-streitet-um-Schuldenbremse-article24309121.html Was mich da besonders überrascht ist Marcel Fratzscher, der sich, wenn ih mich richtig erinnere, vor ein paar Jahren bei Jung&naiv noch sehr vehement für die Schuldenbremse ausgesprochen hat.

4

Zumal weniger Schwimmbäder ja auch bedeuten, dass es schwieriger wird schwimmen zu lernen. Und gut schwimmen zu können ist immer noch die effektivste Methode nicht zu ertrinken oder Ertrinkenden helfen zu können.

Btw, woher stammt dein Zitat? Nicht aus dem pfostierten Artikel, oder?

What does "petting" mean in this context?

Die FDP verteidigte den Emissionshandel als maßgebliches Instrument ihrer Klimapolitik. Der am Markt gebildete CO2-Preis würde realistisch darstellen, was die Einsparung einer Tonne CO2 koste. „Spätestens durch den CO2-Preis wird es zum ureigensten Interesse von Unternehmen und Verbraucherinnen und Verbrauchern, ihren CO2-Fußabdruck zu reduzieren“, meint die Partei.

Aber ist denn nicht offensichtlich, dass das total am Ziel vorbeiläuft? Selbst wenn der Preis realistisch die Kosten abbildet, wird damit ja nur erreicht, dass meine Firma rausblasen darf, was eine andere einspart und damit bleibt die Gesamtemission bestenfalls gleich, obwohl sie sinken müsste. Zumindest müsste man ja gucken, dass es teurer ist zu emittieren als einzusparen, damit auch ein Anreiz gesetzt ist.

We are well past the "what is easier to do" point and need to grasp for every straw there is though.