neeeeDanke

Aber hatte sie einen Helm auf?! Und brauchen wir jetzt auch eine Kennzeichenpflicht für Bäume?

Sechsbär und Leminggrad seien wie

Davor unbeteiligter Cop:

Ich finds schön, wenn sie das unangemessen finden, wir finden das nicht unangemessen.

(sonst keine (gemäßigteren) Aussagen anderer Polizisten)

Aber gut das das nur einzelne sind, und es kein Systematisches Problem gibt.

relevant classic meme

not really. In an ideal democracy you could simply vote those people out in the next election . In a well working democracy there is only so much they can do before they are not reelected.

The difference to NGOs is that in a democracy one person (ideally) has exactly one vote while your influence on non profits -especially when you are wealthy enought to afford your own- is mkreso connected to what you (can) donate, so how wealthy you are. In my opinion that makes relying on government more egalitarian whereas a system built on charities is more seceptable to oligarchigal structures.

(I understand that in many places Governments are (very) currupt or not democratic to begin with and there are many NGOs that are democratic (or meybe just plain better for the interests of the people) compared to those governments. And in those cases these NGOs are -for now- obviously better then the government. But imo with a stable democracy the government is a fairer morer stable and more equal solution.

what does it mean that europeans consider NGOs to be undemocratic?

In a democracy power should allways be held by the people. If you have a NGO -even when it does very good things- there allways is a danger that it could go against the peoples ideals or even their interests. You (as in the people as a whole) are also not as soverign when relying on NGOs for basic societal needs like a social saftey net as the voluntary donations founding them could stop any time. Thereby the power is transfered the donors (althought luckily most small-mid sized donors do not really exercize that power) who are mostly the wealthy as they just have more money to spend. A better solution is taxing fairly and using the common found gained throught that in a way the majority decides.

I recently watched an interesting video from Adam Conover on that: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Cu6EbELZ6I. Altgought I do not agree with everything said (I don't think the Patagonia nonprofit in particular is problematic in my opinion the focus should have been set even more on the issue of something like that beeing possible) I agree with the key message for the reason provided above.

2 centuries? European colonialism continued well into the mid 20th century. There are still people alive who directly participated in them. Besides that, even thought most alive today did not participate directly they still benifit immensly from the colonial past of their countries.

And taking responsibility has been very slow/late and limited, often being limeted to apologies without reperations. The Belgian Crown for example only apologized for its involvement in forced labor and exploitation in the Congo three years ago. Germany only recognized its genocide in Namibia two years ago and refuses to pay reperations.

2 centuries? European colonialism continued well into the mid 20th century. There are still people alive who directly participated in them. Besides that, even thought most alive today did not participate directly they still benifit immensly from the colonial past of their countries as anouther comment allready mentioned.

And taking responsibility has been very slow/late and limited, often being limeted to apologies without reperations. The Belgian Crown for example only apologized for its involvement in forced labor and exploitation in the Congo three years ago. Germany only recognized its genocide in Namibia two years ago and refuses to pay reperations.

So yes for the shit they did (or bear a responsibility for if you wanna be more percise).

das war absolut nicht pöbelnd gemeint, eher eine Referenz zu dem Phänomen, das war auf Reddit relativ häufig bei solchen Karten (auch wenn die tbh einen stärkeren kausalen Zusammenhang hatten). Damal hätte ich eher den Sub verlinkt (ist aber mitlerweile recht tot).

Ich hätte halt gedacht das (er)kennt man als Anspielung darauf, daher die Wortwahl.

(fand aber tbh deine erste Antwort auch nicht gerade freundlich ;) )

ist dennoch ein Karte die Grob mit der Bevölkerungsdichte korreliert, das ist das was ich meinte. https://www.deutschlandatlas.bund.de/DE/Karten/Wo-wir-leben/006-Bevoelkerungsdichte.html

Was ich meine, ist ein Phänomen bei dem viele Statistiken, die geographische Unterschiede oft mit der Bevölkerungsdichte korrelieren (und oft auch kausal zusammenhängen) und man so eine Korrelation zwischen sonst kaum zusammenhängenden Statistiken herstellen kann. Hier z.B. könnte der kausale Zusammenhang auch die besseren Strukturen und das für Ausländer angenehmeren Klima (bzw. geringerem Wiederstand gegen Aufnahme von Flüchtlingen in dichter bevölkerten Gebieten) sein. Das wäre genau die gegenteilige Richtung des Zusammenhangs zu dem, was der Originalkommentar meint. Daher mein Kommentar, dass die Karte ähnlich aussieht, wie die der Bevölkerungsdichte und der Zusammenhang auch über ander Faktoren/in die andere Richtung gehen könnte.

Karten die (fast) einfach nur Bevölkerungsdichte sind für 200?

are there no dc-dc PSUs (or technically just voltage regulators I guess) to relace a PSU with available? That way OP could avoid part of the Ac->Dc->Ac->Dc-conversion related losses he would have with a battery-backup.