I want to believe!

It’s so lovely to see how the mask has finally fallen off and we get to see the EU as the totalitarian regime that it really is.

If they are then they’re hiding it pretty well.

After the pipeline was destroyed there was no way back because the bridges were burnt. This effectively shut down any possible debate on how far support for Ukraine should go even if it harms German economy. If the option to get cheap pipeline gas was still on the table, business interests would have put immense pressure on the government to avoid the industrial collapse that we see now. But with the pipeline being off the table, that discussion could no longer happen.

You could reasonably argue that Germany should have been investing in renewables and nuclear the way China has been. Had that happened then it wouldn’t have found itself in the same dire situation. However, it is worth noting that despite having absolutely mind boggling amount of renewables deployment, China still relies on Russian energy today. That’s likely to be the case for decades to come. Given that, I find it highly unlikely that Germany could’ve completely switched to renewables by 2022 even with the best of policies. The situation could’ve been less catastrophic, but the underlying problems I outlined above would still be largely present. German industry would still have to compete with other industrial powers where input costs are lower.

And here’s what’s happening with coal. Germany reopened a bunch of coal plants

• https://www.forbes.com/sites/robertbryce/2022/10/28/the-iron-law-of-electricity-strikes-again-germany-re-opens-five-lignite-fired-power-plants/
• https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/E-9-2023-000165_EN.html
• https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/germany-approves-bringing-coal-fired-power-plants-back-online-this-winter-2023-10-04/

As of 2025, coal-fired power production increased 9.3 percent, while electricity production from fossil gas increased by 11.6 percent. https://www.cleanenergywire.org/news/fossil-electricity-production-germany-increased-10-first-half-2025

That does not look like a green energy transition to me.

No, that’s backwards. Pipeline being blown up ensured that Germany had no option to get pipeline gas which removed it from public debate on whether Germany should participate in the war and the economic impact that would have on Germany. Had the pipeline remained operational, that would’ve obviously had an impact on German politics because there would’ve been significant economic pressure.

Meanwhile, it’s pretty clear that Germany has failed to replace cheap Russian energy with any green alternatives. Not only that, but Germany has now gone back to using more coal instead, which is far worse for the environment.

Germany being cut off from cheap pipeline gas, which was primarily coming through Nord Stream, is very obviously the reason. Pipeline gas was a fixed price, long term contract. LNG is traded on the market and it’s an order of magnitude more expensive.

Clearly you’re either completely ignorant on the subject you’re attempting to discuss here, or you’re just a troll. In ether case, it’s very clear who’s actually arguing in bad faith here.

I’m in my 40s and I’m really glad I got into martial arts back in my 20s and kept up with it.

One has to be a complete imbecile not to be able to understand that surge in input costs compared to competitors would in fact lead to industry collapsing. Germany is now forced to buy expensive energy from the US, meanwhile the US has cheap access to domestic energy and China gets energy at a discount from Russia. This makes manufacturing in Germany entirely uncompetitive. But yeah, I’m sure it’s a total coincidence that the industrial collapse in Germany coincides with it being cut off from Russian energy. You are so very intelligent.

gas usage is lower because German industry is now extinct, but yeah aside from that no other major effects 🤣

🤣

It’s about as productive as trying to turn a lion vegetarian.

I’m perfectly calm and nobody is upset here. I’m simply explaining to you that your argument does not make sense. If you want to look at negative sides of the trade-off then come up with some arguments that make logical sense. It’s quite telling that you start making personal attacks when you can’t actually address the points being made.

This is actual research, not some “alternative medicine scam” https://www.nature.com/articles/s42255-021-00491-8

I genuinely don’t know what you’re arguing anymore, because your logic is completely backwards. You’re blaming the GPL for “enshitification” and bloat, which is utterly nonsensical. The license has fuck all to do with how lean or bloated a piece of software is, that’s a result of developer priorities and corporate roadmaps. The GPL’s entire purpose is to enforce freedom, and a key part of that freedom is the right to fork a project and strip out the bloat yourself if the main version goes off the rails. You then admit that corporate contributions are valuable, but your proposed solution is to letting them keep their work proprietary which is the very thing that accelerates enshitification. You’re arguing that to stop companies from making software worse, we should give them a free pass to take public labor, build their own walled gardens, and contribute nothing back. That’s just corporate apologia that encourages the exact freeloading the GPL was designed to prevent. Your entire point is a self-contradictory mess.

What I’m saying is that you could make an architecture similar to M1 which would have the same benefits of being fast and energy efficient, and slap a tailored Linux distro on top of it that just work out of the box. As a dev, I’d buy a decently built laptop like that in a second.

No, GPL does not force companies to do that. It forces companies to make their source code available. There is zero requirement that it has to be contributed to the original project, nor do the maintainers of the project have to accept changes they don’t want. You’re completely misrepresenting the how GPL works here.

Centralization, bloating, and GPL are all orthogonal concepts that bear no direct relation to each other. A centralized project does not necessarily become bloated, nor does GPL play any role in whether a project is centralized or not.

GPL because abstract freedoms are meaningless. The goal should be to ensure that the code stays open and that corps aren’t freeloading of it.

I’m really amazed that it’s been half a decade now and nobody has made a comparable SoC using ARM or RISCV tailored to Linux.

Yeah, Russia should’ve just let the ethnic cleansing in Donbas continue. At lest you fascists have consistent values from Gaza to Donbas.