I don’t know the other countries. I don’t mean it happens everywhere every day, but a big storm can throw a few trees on the lines to the South and bench all trains on those lines for half a day easily. Anyway I also meant it’s not terror, just irritation. Which is usual for French people. No one was harmed, people are just sour they can’t go on vacation.
If you think a bunch of trains running late for a day causes terror, you don’t know the French rail system.
A bomb that could destroy Earth’s core would be an admittedly impressive technical feat!
Does France do graduated brackets like the US?
Is there any place that does taxes without brackets, just flat “pass this number and suddenly lose half of everything”? Does that even exist outside the imagination of Americans who have never understood or looked at taxes? Brackets should be the definition of income taxes, is it not? It’s not an economic tariff applied regardless the volume of merchandise passing a frontier.
The link quotes him calling the Kiev regime a putsch, but that was back in 2014, and that was in fact a revolution. It’s not about Zelensky, but he does give all the current talking points (neonazis in Kiev, NATO provocations, Russia can’t have NATO at their doorstep…). BTW no one did anything about Russia stealing Crimea, either, everyone was still trying to justify not doing anything.
That was 10 years ago and he has been (very) slowly toning it down: when making the left alliance a few weeks ago, he finally relented on allowing weapons to be sent to Ukraine because the rest of the left made him, there’s still hope he’ll give up the anti-NATO talk… eventually. If he makes it to the government, when someone asks him about Russia bombing children’s hospitals, at some point he’ll have nowhere to run because he doesn’t actually support that. He shouts and curses quite violently at journalists who help out the far right, but on serious subjects in serious interviews, he actually has to be reasonable (and he is). On the last presidential elections, when he showed up to the round 1 left parties debates, he was all proper and serious and making his points properly and sensibly - and then he lost on round 1 and the next day in the street, he screamed his head off at the first journalist who put a microphone in his face.
Oh, and over this side of the world, no one claims Russia is socialist. But leftists do get mad at the EU and NATO for crushing the farmer class and playing the capitalist hand, that’s what that is about.
Yup. I don’t even get what “populism” is when mentioned in media. Isn’t that-- democracy?
Populism is demagogy, it’s repeating people’s complaints back to them, to amplify them and place yourself as an apparent leader, but without actually bringing any solution - and when it does, it’s immediately far right “beat everyone out”. Democracy is actually creating policy and voting on it, which by definition implies people disagreeing in that vote. Populism is rounding up everyone with the same mind, excluding everyone else (not voting on anything) and trying to crush opposition with numbers and no policy. It’s the antithesis to democracy.
Edit - it might depend on the region of the world, I don’t think I’ve seen a lot of left wingers be called populists. Originally it just means the opposition between the people and the elite, so that would match what you say, and apparently some left parties are trying to return to that definition for some reason, but it seems the Pope is taking the other version that has become much more common.
Don’t watch far right propaganda. Even the communist party removed the hammer and sickle over a decade ago.
? ? ? Sir this is Europe, you’re in the wrong part of the world, you don’t know what socialists are.
imagery of red flags, hammers and sickles, photos of Marx and Che Guevara
Name one French politician who uses that?
The center left hasn’t been listening much for a few decades, which is why the far right has been steadily rising from a 20% ceiling to this 35% ceiling just now. But the alliance that won today is not center left - it has some legit left. You can tell because the center and the media have been working overtime to prop up the most divisive figure as Literaly Worse Than Hitler that needs to be stopped at all cost, even by electing literal Nazis.
But this new left is also an alliance, and the current fear is that some of them will jump ship to side with the center right when we all realize that we really can’t form a government, because no one has an absolute majority. Even with those potential defections, the center will likely still not get a majority back. Worst case scenario is the left breaks, no one can govern, and Macron uses an obscure law to take over 100%, best case scenario the left holds and Macron can’t even do that and we have a chance of getting at least SOME improvement.
President is elected, assembly is elected, president picks a prime minister among the majority party in the assembly (hopefully the same as his own, since the assembly gets to confirm the pick), prime minister picks a government (picks the ministers in their own party) with the president’s blessings. In case the majority party is opposite the president, the president doesn’t get much of a choice, as we know the majority party will only accept ministers on their side.
When the assembly is reelected, the prime minister typically offers their resignation regardless of the results (we are here), and the president can accept it or refuse it (we expect Macron to refuse, or at least delay it until the end of the Olympics, which makes the most sense, but Attal will almost certainly be gone after the Olympics). Then a new government is formed. A prime minister usually gets a couple governments under their belt until the president gets a new prime minister. Attal got shafted by the early dissolution since he was only here for a few months.
1st round projections aren’t the same as winning projections. Those 240+ seats projections were illustrating the actual results of round 1, where the far right was ahead in a lot of places, not from guessing how round 2 would end, because… we don’t do it that way, I guess? But since round 2 only brings the candidates who scored above 20%, which usually means either 2 or 3, rarely 4 candidates, instead of 10+, that means everyone who voted on round 1 for the parties that lost would then vote for one of the remaining 2~3 candidates. And that’s anybody’s guess.
So you can have 30% of voters bringing the far right to the top among 10 candidates, but those 30% don’t win when there’s only 2 or 3 candidates left, because it turns out 70 always beats 30 - especially with the mutual agreement that a 3rd place center or left candidate would drop out in favor of the other to stop the far right. This doesn’t work in rural places where the far right was over 40% (some “centrists” still chose the far right over the left alliance, getting over 60%), but it works everywhere else - and that’s what happened here. Think of 2 round voting with >10 parties as a little bit more like one round ranked choice voting than first past the post with 3 candidates.
Realistically, we knew that the results of the first round was never going to hold, because it’s been like that for a few decades - like someone else said, 2002 saw the far right fail to get more on the presidential round 2 than the 20% of their score of round 1 (but that ceiling has been rising since because of Macron); of course there’s the concern of the growing number of regions that feel abandoned and turn to the far right, but beyond that, the real question was how well the left alliance would do, and how badly the “center” would drop. That’s the big deal, the left is back on top - now we just hope that union is strong enough and they don’t collapse again because of the constant demonizing that Macron and the media have been spewing non-stop (they really no joke honestly want the far right over the boogeyman “extreme left” that doesn’t exist), with the center left abandoning ship to side with Macron again.
beings from other planets,
Not that one, no.
The first change is that the vote count certification wouldn’t have been finished and Biden’s victory would have been denied. Sooo…
They do this to give a date to the statement. To say it wasn’t recorded several months ago.
I’ve been playing the series since LttP. Twilight Princess is my top, for presentation and storytelling.
I feel like Skyward Sword tried to repeat that, but the dungeons and style / atmosphere of the world of TP still come out on top (even though I’m not very much into gothic style and furries). I think SS is way too cartoonish and happy-go-lucky for a world where the surface has been abandoned to the demons and yet everyone who lives there is cool (gorons, kiwis, moles, proto-Zora), that’s a massive tonal dissonance between the narration and the actual environment and it just takes me out.
The next ones on my top list are Minish Cap and Link Between Worlds.
I know what you mean, but Nintendo is a pretty bad example to illustrate that sentiment. I mean, they totally do corporate crap to benefit them and not the players obviously, but the Zelda series is literally built around the gimmicks of the console. They start thinking about a gimmick, either on the console and / or how to turn that into a gameplay gimmick, and then they make a Zelda game around that. OoT had the rumble pack and then tried to do Ura Zelda that was supposed to be the system seller for the DD64 - but that blew up and was salvaged between Master Mode and Majora’s Mask. The GameCube had Four Swords with the connection to the GBA and the multiplayer. The Wii had Skyward Sword with the motion thing, the Wii U had the separate tablet. The DS then the 3DS weren’t too relevant for Zelda but they tried, and other games did rely on it.
I’m not saying it’s a fact for the whole series, but Nintendo is particularly famous for developing a gimmick console and then building games around that, so yes, the physical console is actually relevant to the game you want to play it on, you’d be hard pressed to port that elsewhere and emulators are always weird and have a lot of work to adapt into something that makes sense on a single screen with a basic gamepad.
Cancer-causing radiations don’t cause wolves to develop cancer resistance, they cause wolves to develop cancer. Those that were more resistant survived, those that weren’t didn’t, now we have wolves that are different from those that we had before. They are mutant wolves, but the radiations didn’t make them mutants. The mutation happened before in some wolves, and their descendants survived better than those that didn’t have it. Evolution has always been like that.
That’s what natural selection is. We focus on those that survived because they developed resistance to something, but it has always meant that everybody else died and the species as a whole has moved forward.
Pourquoi pas les deux