Das eine ist die Folge des anderen. Fällt das eine, fällt auch das andere.
und
keine zusätzliche Investition
Stimmt nicht. Investitionen sind lediglich auf Einnahmen beschränkt. (Im Ergebnis also plus/minus Null).
moralisch
Du meinst ideologosch. Was für eine Moral soll das denn auch sein?
It doesn't need to be constitutional, a simple law is enough.
Sure, if this was some kind of joke poll ignoring the most basic rules of democratic voting, I'll stand corrected.
Und dazu die Ideologie der "schwarzen Null".
Die Geschichte zeigt, dass in Krisenzeiten immer massive Investitionen nötig waren. Andere Länder machen das auch gerade.
Aber Deutschland glänzt als fiktive "schwäbische Hausfrau" die nicht kapiert, dass man ein undichtes Dach auch dann flicken muss, wenn keine Kohle dafür da ist, wenn man nicht will dass die ganze Bude runterschimmelt.
check carefully what you signed. If you didn't sign anything saying otherwise, there's nothing to prevent you from doing it.
If there's something, you could still work around it (e.g. remove company secrets).
If the resulting product is provable better, then it's objectively not the same thing you did for your boss.
After checking all of this, your local FSF might give you free legal advice to get going (keep all notes/correspondence secure for later if anything comes up. It proves you tried to act responsibly).
Of course they did. Did you ever vote?
How do you think that goes? "Hey you! Only one per booth! Oh, it's a man. Is it your husband? Oh, I see your marriage certificate. Then it's all fine." for millions of couples? Come on...
You might want to check your facts.
Sure it's cancellation fees? This doesn't seem legal.
How would the husband check? Voting is strictly secret punishable by law. It's next to impossible to check what your wife actually put on the ballot. For a reason...
I'm no expert either but I never got the idea of a new universe popping up everytime. Do other universes also cause popups of new universes or just ours? That'd escalate quickly :-)
I thought it goes that there's already infinite universes existing from the big bang on. Otherwise universes would be created without big bang. (The new universe would just pop up and you'd still believe it was created by the big bang but there never was one)
Also I'm not sure if laws of thermodynamics had to span accross universes. Take two theoretical perfect vacuum/radiation sealed boxes you put an energy source into. There's no way to communicate between boxes. Each box had it's own entropy and state of energy. Both would obey the laws of physics while being separate "systems".
That thought experiment wouldn't work, if new boxes had to pop up if one of the boxes wanted to.
why would alternative universes share a single source of energy? couldn't each have their own?
It's not a democratic process then by definition.
Now that's a valid point. But how bold to assume, the vote was lost because men forced their women to use mail-in. In reality, reasons are much more complex.