1
32
submitted 41 minutes ago by als@lemmy.blahaj.zone to c/fuckcars@lemmy.world
2
30
Jinx (lemmy.nz)
submitted 54 minutes ago by Naich@piefed.world to c/cat@lemmy.world

If I could relax as effectively as a cat, I wouldn't have to take anxiety pills.

3
15
submitted 27 minutes ago by mc900ftJesus@lemy.lol to c/world@quokk.au
4
13
submitted 41 minutes ago by tardigrade@scribe.disroot.org to c/world@quokk.au

cross-posted from: https://scribe.disroot.org/post/11402699

...

Populists [in Europe] adept at finding a foreign (or migrant) culprit behind almost every grievance have somehow developed a blind spot the size of China. Whether on the left or the right, Europe’s firebrands are oddly unwilling to cast Beijing as the villain of the piece. The Alternative for Germany (AfD) thinks China is so fantastic it wants Germany to take part in its „Belt and Road” infrastructure initiative. In Hungary the Fidesz party of Viktor Orban, which got its start bashing commies of the Soviet ilk, became cheerleaders for their Chinese comrades. On the left, Unsubmissive France [the leftwing populist party “La France Insoumise”] has warned against European „meddling”, should China one day invade Taiwan.

...

Both unions and employers in Europe are fretting about a new China Shock. Most voters across the continent have an unfavourable view of the country. This ought to be pure demagogic gold. Granted, for a populist in search of synthetic outrage, a factory worker in Shenzhen „stealing our jobs” is less tangible than a local migrant supposedly filching our social security.

...

What lies behind this China populism gap? In Germany it may be a matter of personnel. The AfD’s leader, Alice Weidel, is a longtime Sinophile, said to speak decent Mandarin after years working there and writing her PhD thesis on the country’s pension system. (Why she is so indulgent towards Russia is another question.) And in countries where populists rule, vast investments from Chinese firms have paid rich dividends to their members. Within weeks of being booted out of office, Mr Orban’s long-standing foreign minister resurfaced as a lobbyist for BYD, a Chinese carmaker.

Moreover, for many populists, China is less a bête noire than a model. Authoritarianism à la Beijing has a certain allure to wannabe strongmen in Europe. The overt form of nationalism practised there contrasts with the mushy globalism that typifies the European Union. In the demagogic imagination, Europe is hobbling itself by following international norms—whether on green issues, trade or human rights—that China barely pays lip service to. This worldview pictures Europeans as the patsies of an international order that China, and perhaps America these days, have worked out how to exploit. If you can’t beat China, the pedlars of outrage might think, at least try to imitate it.

...

But the main problem for Europe’s wannabe China-antagonists is that picking a fight with Beijing would require the very thing populists profess to hate most: more Europe. For only by acting collectively through Brussels do Europeans have any hope of swaying policy in Beijing. The EU has already imposed tariffs on Chinese electric vehicles, though imports keep rising. On September 16th Ursula von der Leyen, president of the European Commission, described the deficit with China as having reached „a tipping point” and hinted at further trade measures, should it persist.

Trade-wary populists ought to be cheering. For now they are silent, careful not to suggest the EU is doing anything right. Soon they may have little choice but to show their hand, posits Janka Oertel of the European Council on Foreign Relations, a think-tank. Once China was a foreign-policy issue, one that voters were not paying much attention to. If a trade war pitting China against Europe ensues, as seems ever more probable, it will become much harder for demagogues to sit on the fence, let alone cheer for the opposition. Soon Europe’s populists will have to decide whether China is a model to borrow from, or a threat to rail against.

...

Archived

The original article is behind a paywall.

5
28

...

The problem is that each attack is treated as a separate incident against a separate country. The evidence is investigated nationally, the condemnation is issued nationally and any response is left to the country attacked. The campaign against Europe is broken into isolated cases, making a collective response politically much harder.

And it is a collective response that is the best way to respond to these attacks and force Russia into some kind of restraint. Europe should treat every confidently attributed Russian operation as part of an attack on European security, then select a collective and proportionate response from an agreed ladder of measures.

...

The term “hybrid” once described a useful fact. Russia mixes sabotage, cyberattacks, disinformation, political interference and deniable kinetic attacks. Sure, the mix is hybrid but the political effect of the label has changed.

It makes acts of violence sound ambiguous, manageable and somehow less real. Lithuanian Foreign Minister Kęstutis Budrys put it plainly: “Russia’s attacks against us are no longer hybrid. They are very kinetic.”

Radosław Sikorski, the Polish foreign minister, spoke in a similar vein, saying on Thursday that “Russia’s hybrid war against Europe has already taken on a ‘kinetic’ dimension” and that these are “on the border between hybrid warfare and outright aggression."

...

Donald Tusk has warned that Russia could strike NATO territory and then present the incident as “accidental”. The official story, he said, would be that there was no reason to consider a NATO response.

That's the point. Russia wants Article 5 to appear, in Tusk’s words, “more theoretical than practical”. The immediate target may be a train, factory, airport or undersea cable but the strategic target is the credibility of collective defense. The Kremlin also wants to break European unity and wear down support for Ukraine.

NATO already accepts that a hybrid operation could, in some circumstances, trigger Article 5. The obstacle is political. Allies examine each incident separately, so almost every operation appears too small to justify a collective response.

...

Europe must reverse that calculation. An attack intended to divide European countries should bring them closer together. An operation designed to weaken Ukraine support should automatically produce more weapons, funding or air defense for Ukraine. Every Russian attempt to frighten one country should trigger a visible response from all.

...

Archived

6
17
One Lucky Koala (ikt.id.au)
submitted 45 minutes ago by eyekaytee@lemmy.world to c/videos@lemmy.world
7
44
submitted 1 hour ago by mc900ftJesus@lemy.lol to c/world@quokk.au
8
10
submitted 28 minutes ago by Quokka@quokk.au to c/australia@quokk.au
9
13
submitted 53 minutes ago* (last edited 10 minutes ago) by diaphragmwp@discuss.tchncs.de to c/flippanarchy@lemmy.dbzer0.com

Context: anti-fa email and webspace provider (that had two domains) is down. One domain went down, then the other.

https://keepitfree.ai/announcements/a/i-shuts-down-stay-human/

https://reason.com/2026/08/27/rubio-uses-terrorism-law-to-ban-secure-email-service/

EDIT: minor correction, the second domain is still resolving but the server itself is down. Though there's no humor when being pedantic :/

10
72

The best things don’t arrive at the door because you clicked “buy now.”

They arrive because, while you were searching somewhere else,

they had already, on quiet paws,

found you.

11
8
submitted 38 minutes ago by Buffalox@lemmy.world to c/ukraine@lemmy.world
12
30

Maybe this is an old change, and everybody else knew about it, but I discovered just now that if you click the Steam Deck compatibility "Learn more" button then it also have tabs for SteamOS, Steam Machine and Steam Frame.

13
52
14
6
submitted 30 minutes ago by schizoidman@lemmy.zip to c/europe@feddit.org
15
11

cross-posted from: https://scribe.disroot.org/post/11402699

...

Populists [in Europe] adept at finding a foreign (or migrant) culprit behind almost every grievance have somehow developed a blind spot the size of China. Whether on the left or the right, Europe’s firebrands are oddly unwilling to cast Beijing as the villain of the piece. The Alternative for Germany (AfD) thinks China is so fantastic it wants Germany to take part in its „Belt and Road” infrastructure initiative. In Hungary the Fidesz party of Viktor Orban, which got its start bashing commies of the Soviet ilk, became cheerleaders for their Chinese comrades. On the left, Unsubmissive France [the leftwing populist party “La France Insoumise”] has warned against European „meddling”, should China one day invade Taiwan.

...

Both unions and employers in Europe are fretting about a new China Shock. Most voters across the continent have an unfavourable view of the country. This ought to be pure demagogic gold. Granted, for a populist in search of synthetic outrage, a factory worker in Shenzhen „stealing our jobs” is less tangible than a local migrant supposedly filching our social security.

...

What lies behind this China populism gap? In Germany it may be a matter of personnel. The AfD’s leader, Alice Weidel, is a longtime Sinophile, said to speak decent Mandarin after years working there and writing her PhD thesis on the country’s pension system. (Why she is so indulgent towards Russia is another question.) And in countries where populists rule, vast investments from Chinese firms have paid rich dividends to their members. Within weeks of being booted out of office, Mr Orban’s long-standing foreign minister resurfaced as a lobbyist for BYD, a Chinese carmaker.

Moreover, for many populists, China is less a bête noire than a model. Authoritarianism à la Beijing has a certain allure to wannabe strongmen in Europe. The overt form of nationalism practised there contrasts with the mushy globalism that typifies the European Union. In the demagogic imagination, Europe is hobbling itself by following international norms—whether on green issues, trade or human rights—that China barely pays lip service to. This worldview pictures Europeans as the patsies of an international order that China, and perhaps America these days, have worked out how to exploit. If you can’t beat China, the pedlars of outrage might think, at least try to imitate it.

...

But the main problem for Europe’s wannabe China-antagonists is that picking a fight with Beijing would require the very thing populists profess to hate most: more Europe. For only by acting collectively through Brussels do Europeans have any hope of swaying policy in Beijing. The EU has already imposed tariffs on Chinese electric vehicles, though imports keep rising. On September 16th Ursula von der Leyen, president of the European Commission, described the deficit with China as having reached „a tipping point” and hinted at further trade measures, should it persist.

Trade-wary populists ought to be cheering. For now they are silent, careful not to suggest the EU is doing anything right. Soon they may have little choice but to show their hand, posits Janka Oertel of the European Council on Foreign Relations, a think-tank. Once China was a foreign-policy issue, one that voters were not paying much attention to. If a trade war pitting China against Europe ensues, as seems ever more probable, it will become much harder for demagogues to sit on the fence, let alone cheer for the opposition. Soon Europe’s populists will have to decide whether China is a model to borrow from, or a threat to rail against.

...

Archived

The original article is behind a paywall.

16
11
17
24

Examples of comments:

"It feels like a cheat code to me. It feels like I'm not going to be as smart as the people who are currently in the field that I want to be in — because of AI."

"We're going to be dealing with the leftovers and downsides to what the politicians and others are doing [about AI regulation], and we don't get a say in it," he said.

18
55
upside down (lemmy.nz)

It sometimes sleeps like this. I guess it's more comfortable?

19
7
submitted 43 minutes ago by solo@piefed.social to c/climate@slrpnk.net

“While no one strategy is a silver bullet, our results provide clear evidence that we should begin by prioritising the forests we have left,”[...]. “And protection must go beyond avoiding deforestation. Avoiding forest disturbances from wildfires or logging delivered the greatest benefits for forest biodiversity.”

No single intervention was sufficient to reverse biodiversity and carbon losses across the entire study area.

“Restoration is essential where forests have been lost across large areas. But our study shows that investing in new forests makes little sense if, at the same time, we fail to protect existing forests,”

The paper: Protecting tropical forests is more cost-effective for biodiversity and climate than restoration

20
4
Quality Software (jeferson.me)
21
7

cross-posted from: https://scribe.disroot.org/post/11402708

...

The problem is that each attack is treated as a separate incident against a separate country. The evidence is investigated nationally, the condemnation is issued nationally and any response is left to the country attacked. The campaign against Europe is broken into isolated cases, making a collective response politically much harder.

And it is a collective response that is the best way to respond to these attacks and force Russia into some kind of restraint. Europe should treat every confidently attributed Russian operation as part of an attack on European security, then select a collective and proportionate response from an agreed ladder of measures.

...

The term “hybrid” once described a useful fact. Russia mixes sabotage, cyberattacks, disinformation, political interference and deniable kinetic attacks. Sure, the mix is hybrid but the political effect of the label has changed.

It makes acts of violence sound ambiguous, manageable and somehow less real. Lithuanian Foreign Minister Kęstutis Budrys put it plainly: “Russia’s attacks against us are no longer hybrid. They are very kinetic.”

Radosław Sikorski, the Polish foreign minister, spoke in a similar vein, saying on Thursday that “Russia’s hybrid war against Europe has already taken on a ‘kinetic’ dimension” and that these are “on the border between hybrid warfare and outright aggression."

...

Donald Tusk has warned that Russia could strike NATO territory and then present the incident as “accidental”. The official story, he said, would be that there was no reason to consider a NATO response.

That's the point. Russia wants Article 5 to appear, in Tusk’s words, “more theoretical than practical”. The immediate target may be a train, factory, airport or undersea cable but the strategic target is the credibility of collective defense. The Kremlin also wants to break European unity and wear down support for Ukraine.

NATO already accepts that a hybrid operation could, in some circumstances, trigger Article 5. The obstacle is political. Allies examine each incident separately, so almost every operation appears too small to justify a collective response.

...

Europe must reverse that calculation. An attack intended to divide European countries should bring them closer together. An operation designed to weaken Ukraine support should automatically produce more weapons, funding or air defense for Ukraine. Every Russian attempt to frighten one country should trigger a visible response from all.

...

Archived

22
5

Irish musicians are pulling out of Ed Sheeran's tour after Macklemore was dropped for saying, “Free Palestine.” But why are the Irish so pro-Palestine? https://xcancel.com/ajplus/status/2100280610950717669 Irish musicians are pulling out of Ed Sheeran's tour after Macklemore was dropped for saying, “Free Palestine.” But why are the Irish so pro-Palestine? 🫡

23
6
submitted 51 minutes ago by SmoothOperator@lemmy.world to c/nyheder@feddit.dk

Kampen om Grønland

Forsvarsaftale med USA er ’total sejr’ for Danmark og Grønland, mener Arktis-ekspert I en aftale, der forventes underskrevet ved FN i næste uge, har præsident Trump droppet sit krav om USA’s suverænitet over Grønland. I stedet bliver forsvarsaftalen fra 1951 opdateret med to punkter Skrevet af: Martin Burcharth USA-korrespondent, Boston

Ifølge statsminister Mette Frederiksen styrker aftalen, der endnu ikke er offentliggjort, »vores fælles sikkerhed i Arktis og det nordatlantiske område«. Ifølge statsminister Mette Frederiksen styrker aftalen, der endnu ikke er offentliggjort, »vores fælles sikkerhed i Arktis og det nordatlantiske område«. Thomas Traasdahl/Ritzau ScanpixFoto: Thomas Traasdahl/Ritzau Scanpix 19. september 2026

Kampen om Grønland En del af serien »En total sejr for Danmark og Grønland. Det er lykkedes at nå frem til et diplomatisk kompromis med Trump-regeringen, som ikke kompromitterer de to landes suverænitet.«

Det konstaterer den amerikansk Arktis-ekspert Marisol Maddox, der er seniorstipendiat i arktiske anliggender ved Dartmouth College i New Hampshire, i en kommentar til den sensationelle nyhed fredag, at præsident Donald Trump formelt har opgivet at »tage kontrol med Grønland«, som han adskillige gange har formuleret som sit ønske.

Sent fredag eftermiddag i Washington, D.C. lagde Trump et opslag ud på sociale medier. Heri skriver han, at USA har indgået en aftale med Danmark og Grønland, der giver USA »permanent kontrol over Grønlands sikkerhed og over alle andre behov … uden at det vil koste USA noget«.

Aftalens indhold var endnu ikke blevet offentliggjort sent fredag aften amerikansk tid. I Danmark bekræftede statsminister Mette Frederiksen (S) i en forsigtig formulering, at »de tre regeringer ventes at underskrive aftalen i næste uge i forbindelse med FN’s Generalforsamling«.

Hun præciserede, at aftalen »styrker vores fælles sikkerhed i Arktis og det nordatlantiske område og dermed også er god for NATO og Europa«, samt at den »anerkender Kongerigets suverænitet og territoriale integritet og det grønlandske folks ret til selvbestemmelse«.

Formand for Naalakkersuisut, Jens-Frederik Nielsen, var ligeledes en kende forbeholden i sin udtalelse. Her skriver han, at »vi er ved at indgå en aftale, der sikrer og styrker sikkerheden for Grønland, Danmark, USA og den vestlige alliance«.

I modsætning hertil bekendtgjorde Trump i sin meddelelse, at aftalen allerede er indgået.

»De danske og grønlandske regeringer gør ret i at tage forbehold, indtil dokumentet er blevet underskrevet,« pointerer Marisol Maddox.

Hun har på afstand fulgt forhandlingerne på embedsniveau mellem de tre lande. De startede efter en dansk og grønlandsk delegations møde med USA’s vicepræsident, JD Vance, og udenrigsminister Marco Rubio tidligere i år, hvor man blev enige om at nedsætte en arbejdsgruppe.

Opdatering af forsvarsaftalen fra 1951 På basis af Trumps meddelelse og en kort kommentar fra Marco Rubio ser aftalen ud til at være en mindre opdatering af forsvarsaftalen mellem USA og Danmark fra 1951. Det var præcis, hvad København og Nuuk sigtede efter.

»USA ville have suverænitet over de områder, rumbasen i Pituffik og nye baser omfatter. Det har Trump ikke fået, og det er en kæmpe sejr for danskerne og grønlænderne,« vurderer Maddox.

Det er imidlertid uvist, hvorvidt USA i den nye aftale skal indhente godkendelse fra de danske og grønlandske regeringer til at bygge nye baser i Grønland.

Uden direkte kendskab til ordlyden i aftalen er det uvist, hvorvidt Danmark har besluttet at droppe en bestemmelse i forsvarsaftalen af 1951, der forudsætter formel dansk godkendelse af bygning af nye amerikanske forsvarsområder i Grønland.

Det antyder Trump, at den danske regering har gjort. Præsidenten skriver, at »USA FOR ALTID vil have fuld mulighed for at gøre det, der er nødvendigt i Grønland, for at sikre og forsvare Grønland og USA’s sikkerhed«.

Det kan formentlig blive en politisk udfordring for Naalakkersuisut at forsvare overfor befolkningen, at USA får ret til at bygge baser, hvor man vil, uden grønlandsk forhåndsgodkendelse.

To indrømmelser til USA Derimod kan det med sikkerhed fastslås, at den opdaterede forsvarsaftale tilstår USA to indrømmelser, understreger Marisol Maddox.

»Den vil sikre, at USA’s mulighed for at have sit militær udstationeret i Grønland fortsætter, hvis Grønland en dag skulle vælge at blive selvstændig. Og den forbyder investeringer fra ikkeallierede lande, hvilket vil sige Kina og Rusland.«

»Det er nyt,« tilføjer hun.

Nu er det så spørgsmålet, hvorvidt Trump-regeringen rent faktisk vil søge Kongressen om at udvide den militære tilstedeværelse i Grønland. I sit opslag bedyrer Trump, at USA »straks vil begynde at forberede en stor militær tilstedeværelse på et egnet sted i Grønland, af hvilke der er mange«.

Men det er ikke en enkel sag, påpeger den arktiske militærekspert.

»Trump skal søge om bevillinger fra Kongressen. Det bliver enormt dyrt at bygge hel ny infrastruktur i et udfordrende terræn og klima. Hvem vil udstationeres sådant et sted – og måske uden familien,« spørger Maddox.

Og hun tilføjer: »Det giver ingen mening at sende en masse amerikanske soldater til Grønland, med mindre der foreligger en risiko for en invasion fra et fremmed land.«

Radar og droner fra Danmark Det vigtigste militære tiltag er allerede undervejs. Som en del af den danske regerings forsvarsplan for Arktis skal der opstilles en radar i det sydøstlige Grønland. Den vil dække over et område, som hverken radaren på den amerikanske Pituffik-base eller en radar på Færøerne er i stand til.

Herudover planlægger man fra dansk side at indsætte overvågningsdroner i Grønland.

Umiddelbart ser det ikke ud til, at der på nuværende tidspunkt foreligger en ekstern trussel mod Grønland og dermed Nordamerika, der nødvendiggør en ekstra militær indsats fra USA.

Det bringer derfor spørgsmålet på bane, hvorfor præsident Trump har stillet sig tilfreds med denne aftale, når han øjensynligt scorer så få konkrete gevinster i forhold til sit oprindelige ønske om at overtage Grønland.

Marisol Maddox er ikke i tvivl.

»Der er midtvejsvalg om kort tid i USA, og republikanerne står til at tabe. Trump er ved at drukne i dårlige nyheder. Her og nu havde han brug for at præsentere en god nyhed – og kalde den for en stor sejr for USA. Og det var let, fordi modparten ikke var en fjende, men to allierede lande.«

24
59
submitted 2 hours ago by daannii@lemmy.world to c/cat@lemmy.world
25
4
submitted 34 minutes ago by schizoidman@lemmy.zip to c/europe@feddit.org
view more: next ›

Lemmy NZ

1,138 readers
25 users here now

Rules:

FAQ ~ NZ Community List ~ Join chatroom ~ Alternate frontends ~ Donate

founded 3 years ago
ADMINS