Chup

It's probably meant as distinction from other sectors with Methane emissions, e.g. agriculture, transport, chemical industry...

It's not that they now changed something with data collection and sharing within the update. They always did it, all services free of charge do it and most that cost money likely take the extra money as well.

It's now that they tell you in a short and informative way (1st sentence) and ask for your consent.

What's really infuriating, are websites and services that have an "Accept All" button but no "Reject All". Instead you have to manage individually and sometimes I have to flip 30 separate buttons to disable data sharing, where they even call advertisers a 'necessary 3rd party' requiring interaction on top.

I tried but it's not playing.

On loading the website, the browser shows a top bar that I must enable DRM copy protection to use some elements on this website. A bottom bar shows that I should make an account and I don't even need a credit card. Just hitting play doesn't play it but shows an overlay that the media cannot be played. No reason given so probably DRM and/or account required.

It's odd to see such an article on Euronews, who are usually very reliable on their reporting. Here we have a mix of different things, mainly existing in the media sphere but less in reality.

1. Leaked recordings – That's the resort of Mr. Pistorius, the Minister of Defence. But even blaming Mr. Pistorius is a bit far fetched, as it was one officer on a trip in Asia not following any safety code by joining a secret online meeting via public wifi and his private phone. Mr. Pistorius already explained the case in the last days. So the blame should go to that person ignoring the safety protocol or their IT service company for failing to instruct properly. Nothing to do with Scholz at all, but some tabloids of course print those baseless calls from opposition politicians. I just don't get why Euronews would publish that.

2. loose-lipped press conferences – Completely made up 'scandal' about Scholz indicating why Taurus cruise missiles cannot be delivered to Ukraine. He didn't even directly say it, but it was a media interpretation, that France and the UK provide geodata for their missiles and the UK has personnel in Ukraine. And on top, that information was already in the news in October 2023. Everyone knows it, it's public for half a year. I feel like waking up in a parallel universe, where made up stories and the norm. It was publicly known and he didn't even say it, yet he gets blamed for leaking secrets.

3. confused policy – Since the beginning, Scholz was against sending Taurus, like very other country asked about 500km missiles as well. He never changed his stance. The article also doesn't go into detail what would be confused about his policy.

Yet, it's getting mentioned what threats Russia is throwing against Germany by supporting Ukraine further. I looked up the writer and it's a British journalist at BBC radio. This article sounds more like a rant on Sun on Dailymail and is not up to the standard that I know from Euronews.

This whole topic about the Taurus cruise missiles feels like a bad act anyway, as no country provided 500 km missiles. Every country said no. And no means no. Unless it's Germany, then the questions comes again and again and again and fingers pointing at Scholz for standing with the same policy as always and as every other country in the world: no 500km missiles.

I think the article only mentions the prices in the Google store, which are way more expensive than other shops. The Pixel 8 128GB is currently available at 550€.

So the Pixel 8a at 570€ would be the more expensive model.

The motivation from the previous nationalist PiS government in Poland was mainly anything they could to do against Russia or against Germany.

So by supporting Ukraine with military equipment, they were acting against Russia. But at the same time slowed down German support for Ukraine, by blocking maintenance and factories for Ukrainian equipment in Poland. Leading to long transports across to other countries e.g. Latvia for maintenance.

Now, with the grain, this has no Russian involvement and their own farmers are unhappy. So there is no way to go against Russia or against Germany. Also there is a new government in Poland, so I guess we have to see how that develops now.

It feels like a cliffhanger for a turn of events. So e.g. Saturn getting really mad and ending, what Kizaru tried with his sword stab - because that truth is too dangerous in his eyes. Or it could also be a trivial message, e.g. that family counts the most in this world - see Kuma and Bonney backstory. I'm uncertain if Vegapunks part ends here or they manage to get him out. But then where to go and hide?

At least there is no break next week. I just hope the next chapter continues and we don't jump around in the world for some parallel events.

I've read that twist a few times on Reddit about 'victim blaming', but suggesting mandatory helmets for bicycles it nothing about blaming anyone for anything. There is a problem on hand and there are are various solutions to improve it. Some solutions are more complex, some are simpler, some are projects with decades runtime to maybe achieve something.

Suggesting mandatory helmets is simply looking for the simplest and cheapest solution of them all, which has also the potential to achieve good success.

It's just numbers, nothing to do with blame.

Pushing for higher diver education, better infrastructure, better technology on vehicles to avoid missing cyclists in the dead corner etc. is all good and important as well. But it's all a lot more effort, way more costly, way longer time frame and the success is hard to judge for some ideas.

It's just clickbait and a lie, when comparing to the statements in the sources they link.

Both sources are their own news, with both saying it's less exercise on an e-bike. But by the concept of an e-bike, there is the possibility to ride more/longer/farther, which can lead - depending on the extra range - to more exercise, than a bike without motor.

I read that paragraph on Wikipedia but fail to see your statements. Italy, Denmark, France aren't even mentioned there.

In detail it's described that Poland stopped paying Russia, so Russia stopped pumping gas via the Yamal pipeline to Poland. That is not 'cutting-off'. Also Poland kept receiving natural gas from Russia via Nord Stream, via Germany and over to Poland during summer 2022. Yamal was running in reverse and supplying Poland, so that they even hit over 100% storage at that time. For Finland it's similar - they stopped paying, so Russia stopped delivering.

Even today Russia supplies EU countries with natural gas, which is also part of the storage and supply calculation within the EU. What if Russia stops delivering tomorrow? How can these countries be supplied in such a scenario? Russia still has some leverage over a few countries, e.g. Austria via long-term contracts, where Austria stated not honouring the contracts from their side, would be more expensive that taking the natural gas.

I must admit I stopped reading after the first paragraph but it's just so exaggerated or simply false, that I don't see the value in spending more time on such an article.

Shell, Europe’s largest energy company, forecast on Wednesday that global demand for liquefied natural gas, which has been a lifeline for Europe after Russia cut off pipeline gas supplies, will surge by around 50 percent over the next 15 years.

• LNG is not a lifeline. A pipeline could be labelled like that, but LNG is a globally traded good supplied by dozens of countries.
• Russia did not cut off natural gas supplies, they even supply now throughout their illegal war, towards countries that support Ukraine.
• 50% increase over 15 years is not a 'surge', but more a slow and steady increase.

That threat or that demand should be easy to fulfil on paper though via bureaucracy – just in case he makes it.

The USA has so many services and authorities included in their military, that other countries usually have separately. E.g. cost guard, army corps of engineers, space force etc.

It would just require some formal budget reallocation for all the countries, that have those services and authorities not in their military budget. And magically, on paper, everyone would suddenly be way over the 2% NATO target. With the USA being in a spot to not even complain about that 'trickery', as the mentioned sectors are in their own military budget anyway.