Given that context, can you see how the people who want to stop putting holes in the boat would get frustrated with the people putting holes in the boat

Yes. Can you see how starting to namecall like a toddler is a bad plan? Now you destroy all possibility of cooperation, and the boat is still sinking. It makes things worse!

would be baffled by someone more concerned about the descriptive pejorative than they are by the other guys putting holes in the boats?

Let’s say a boat is sinking. There’s people making holes and there’s toddlers screaming and shouting and kicking everyone in sight. Can you see how a reasonable person would see both as an annoying hinderance that make things worse, not better? How one group telling they don’t like the other group is useless and frustrating childish behaviour - the boat is sinking, remember?

Your whole plan is to show them how things would be better

Yes. Work on technology and policy others will want to copy for their own benefit. It’s the only thing that’s going to work.

The growth in solar power production, for example, isn’t because it’s green. It’s because it’s a cheaper way of producing power in many situations. That’s all that is.

The current methodology of bullying is not working, even doing the reverse. Emissions are currently at an all time high, and rising. Your plan is to keep doing that same thing, antagonize the majority of the world, and expect a different outcome?

These countries

You’re talking about the majority of the world. If you read the article, the EU is part of only a very small group of countries, representing a very very small part of the world’s population and emissions.

We can, and are, antagonizing them all. They can and are simply ignoring us. How does that help climate change mitigation? Or is that not the goal?

You’re saying we should give Jeffery Dahmer a hand job to convince him to stop killing people.

Where did I say that?

I, instead, proposed leading by example. To stop the hateful speech and namecalling that is hindering policy change.

I proposed actually developing good technology and policy internally, that others will want to copy, for their own benefit.

What we’re currently doing, screaming and shouting like a toddler, is clearly not working.

Sadly, that divisive rethoric seems to be the only thing you’re capable of. Once again, completely ignoring constructive, cooperative thinking, to focus on namecalling and your ego.

the world should rather hail (…)

That’s a false dichotomy, a childish one, that hurts everyone.

I presented a third option, one that would have direct positive effect locally, and long term positive effect globally. It’s the part of my comment you ignored in favour of divisive rethoric.

If only people, like you, weren’t so short sighted, fixated on name calling and bullying. The choice isn’t “who should we bully”. We should just not bully at all. We could use the same effort to look for solutions instead.

I really wonder about these people’s reasoning? If only we call others names in public, bully them, they’ll change their minds? Climate action will occur? It’s clearly not working!

These other countries are sovereign. EU has very little to offer them. So what’s left is to convince them by being a great example of how climate action, energy security, economical wellfare and political stability can be balanced. They’ll copy the policy, when it’s an example worth following, to their benefit.

Just throwing tantrums like Hoekstra is embarrassing and more importantly contra productive to the cause. I understand that reasonable people don’t want to work together with that.

And just stop being depressed

Hackerman caught red pawed

largely due to a lack of competitiveness with China and the US

Where does the lack of competitiveness come from?

The move to a sustainable economy is an opportunity (…)

should make sure that industry jobs are not lost and that Europe’s industrial sectors and their workers are fundamental to delivering the climate solutions Europe needs, which are very different things to what you said

It’s been decades now of supposed opportunity, could and should, of storytelling, hypotheticals and promises, as in your references.

The results are in, the promises turned out false. EU has the most expensive energy of the world, is losing industry faster than ever, there is no novel “green industry”. People are looking at reality instead of the fantasy could/should stories.

EU’s agenda on climate change is being ignored for valid reasons. We’re an unreliable partner in accelerating economical, industrial and thus geopolitical decline.

If we want to convince others on the necessary climate change mitigation methods, we’ll have to have something to offer.

We’ll have to implement the mitigation methods in a way that shows they’re a benefit. So others will want to copy. So far that hasn’t happened. We’ve shown the opposite.

Remember Hoekstra’s emberassing speech? Like a toddler throwing a tantrum. (1)

“Under no circumstances are we going to accept this.” in name of EU. They accepted it two days later as everyone ignores him anyways.

Almost none of the other countries cares for EU’s opinion because the EU has shown that the greenification comes at the cost of most expensive energy in the world (1), deindustrialization (2), becoming completely dependent on foreign r&d and manufacturing. This also has military consequences, as we can view in Russia’s war in Ukraine - EU promised aid it can’t deliver, leading to strategic mistakes, deaths and military losses by Ukraine. This also economical consequences, leading to political instability and which will permeate to the loss of the welfare state.

We’ve made an exempliary role of ourselves, in a cautionary way.

We try to convince others by relying on slogans and wishful thinking, on the one hand. And shaming and bullying on the other. Should’ve relied instead on great engineering that others would want to follow for their own benefit. Show, don’t tell.

But we’ve no such thing - au contraire.

the answers to the climate crisis do not lie inside the climate talks

I have concerns that the opposite effect may be occurring. The leading countries in addressing climate change appear to have prioritized their efforts at the expense of industrial growth, energy security, and short-term population welfare, which has resulted in economical stagnation or decline, unhappy populations and political turmoil. Geopolitically, it seems they may have overextended their influence, leaving them with little to offer and they are easily ignored in global discussions.

Developing and manufacturing nations view that approach as a cautionary example.

And stop with the emoji’s you minecraft nerds. Ascii has all you need ੭˃ᴗ˂)੭

Is there some way to self host what cloudflare does?

Your domain will always have to be rented through a 3rd party. Cloudflare is (or was?) one of the better choices for that.

Cloudflare does other things as well, most notably it can acts as a proxy: an inbetween between your server and the users. This inbetween can be useful against DOS attacks, blocking of bots, etc. But for most self hosters that part is not necessary. It’s a toggle in cloudflare’s DNS dashboard: I think you’d want it to say DNS only.

Another thing cloudflare can do is tunneling. It’s useful for when your server is behind a firewall or NAT or double NAT you can’t or don’t want to configure. You’d probably know if you use this, so I assume you don’t?

Is there any meta analysis on these major outages?

They seem to be occuring more and more regularly.

Someone once explained it to me.

Some think the law should describe illegal behaviour. And that the law should apply the same to everyone. Those people are a minority.

What happens in practice is that most people just want to be able to punish people they don’t like. So they don’t mind overly broad, generic laws, as in their mind it will only be used against the other. Especially in (former) high-trust societies.

And in practice the selective enforcement can work for a long, long time, too. Until a shift of power occurs, and the same laws are enacted just as selectively, but directed differently. Then they surprise pikachu.

I’d assume they’re danish actors based on the article

In Denmark, the “right of integrity means that even in cases where you are allowed to make use of a work, you are not allowed to change it or use it in a way or in a context that infringes the author’s literary or artistic reputation or uniqueness,” a resource for Danish researchers noted.

Infringes reputation is so sooo broad. It comes down to who does the judge like the most, no? Reddit mods will always be way down on the list, as the judicial inclined tend to be technologically illiterate.

Also, the reddit mod is not jailed. In most of europe “prison” sentences like this are conditional sentences.

commenter justifying why the EU is attempting to loosen their privacy laws.

They’re not?

They’re listing 2 possibilities:

Status quo: the whole AI (and tech in general) remains foreign controlled.

EU makes a change in GDPR Law

Maybe you can add a third option, like: “Perhaps GDPR law isn’t the reason why AI and tech sector in EU is so non-existant”, and a constructive conversation could’ve been had.

Has anything I’ve written even read like I’m forming a group of like minded people, virtue signaling, and running the other person out of town?

Yes.

when I’m clearly responding to what the person wrote and only what the person wrote

That’s sadly incorrect. You responded to an incorrect assumption made about the original comment.

Depending on 3rd parties is a pain in the ass

explaining something no one asked to be explained, sort of gave away their opinion with their explanation

I understood that point of view. I just don’t agree, at all! I prefer factual conversation, describing the dilemma. OP demonstrated that they understand that the problem has multiple tradeoffs.

coloring the loss of privacy laws for the betterment of AI companies as a good or necessary thing (like the original commenter did).

The original commenter didn’t do that? They described the tradeoff.

I think you prefer tribal, coloured conversation. To the point where if it doesn’t match your preferred colour, you very quickly and incorrectly assume people are anti your colour?

Sadly, my experience is the same