If it is truly anonymized then it isn’t protected under GDPR.

Where’s the NATO equivalent

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collective_Security_Treaty_Organization
Headquartered in Moscow.

Now think for yourself why Ukraine would rather protect itself from being invaded by Russia than by the US.

Unfortunately that’s exactly how it works.
Look at any country’s border and tell me which ones weren’t established by violence.

The actual question is, what alternative to accepting Israel’s existence would you propose. Because forcefully removing them would just be one more crime.

Yes, opposing the establishment of a new state with a new population where someone else already lived would have been appropriate in the late 1940s.

Unfortunately it’s 2024 now, Israel does exist and time is linear.
So the only thing that can be done now is to recognize neither Israel nor Palestine should be erased.
(Though pointing out that the latter doesn’t seem to get mentioned here would be appropriate.)

Besides providing verbatim records of who said what, there is a second can of worms in forming any sort of binding agreement if the two sides of the agreement are having two different conversations.

I think this is what the part about the missed nuance means.

France has plenty of nuclear power.
It doesn’t help with renewable peaks in the slightest.

What is needed are storage solutions and flexible usage that can utilize cheap power at peak times.

That’s why the button says “purchase” instead of “buy”

First off, they’re synonyms
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/purchase#synonyms

Now, I’m certainly no expert on the US legal system. It certainly seems silly if you could circumvent entire laws just by using synonyms but what do I know.
However I have been talking about other countries where that is not the case and where the language is not English.
So It really doesn’t matter whether it say “buy” or “purchase” in English when it’s “kaufen” in German or “acheter” in French.

Yes, one can argue that more fossil energy could have been shut down if the nuclear plants had continued operating.

That said, Nuclear was replaced by renewables. Coal was also replaced by renewables.
Maybe more coal could have been replaced but claiming that nuclear was replaced with coal is a rhetoric trick but it is literally not true.

Also these assumptions about replacing coal always seem to come from people who have no idea about the power of the German coal lobby.
Coal is just about the only natural resource Germany has and is a massive industry.
The coal exit movement is decades old as well. But as the graphs show it is also glacially slow due to massive lobbying.

You original comment was that someone “turned on coal/oil…”
That statement is factually and demonstrably incorrect.
Gas was not even part of that original claim but whatever.

Building capacity as a reserve for peak times is not the same as the plants actually running and producing emissions.
As the graphs show, the actual production and therefore emissions from fossil sources have gone down. This is what matters in he climate change debate.
The mere existence of buildings has little to do with the topic at hand.

You mean “Installed net power generation capacity”?
Because that measures how much could theoretically be produced, not how much is actually produced.

For actual production, you might want to look at the two graphs below.
Particularly the 4th one shows that gas peaked in 2000 and has not gone up during the nuclear phase-out.

turned on coal/oil…

Despite the internet’s insistence to the contrary, Germany has not increased its power production from fossil fuels.
It is in fact at the lowest level of the past 30 years
https://www.cleanenergywire.org/factsheets/germanys-energy-consumption-and-power-mix-charts

at the moment every single counrty must agree to a decision

The EU treaties have already changed, so that many decisions can be made by qualified majority.
Unanimity is only still required in certain fields:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voting_in_the_Council_of_the_European_Union#Unanimity

Why is ‘threatened’ in quotation marks?

You typically don’t get “ownership rights” when you purchase a game on Steam. You’ll typically be purchasing a licence to play the game, which could be taken away at any point.

That is certainly what Valve thinks and writes in their TOS but if their store has a big button that says “BUY HALO” then courts may very well decide that you actually bought Halo.
And many countries have a strict legal definition of what buying means that cannot be overruled by some company’s TOS.

This is explicitly against their TOS. Whether or not you’ll be found out is a whole other matter

Also whether or not those TOS are legally enforceable in every single country Valve operates in.

Piracy is a service problem

I mean, it seems they want to focus on the outcome not the reason so the title is pretty much on point.

One of the best jokes to come out of the UN in a long time.

The ICC is not a UN organization

If everybody individually behaved correctly, we wouldn’t need any laws.
But as the entire human history has shown us, that is not the case. Which is why societies have passed laws even before recorded history.

Is that coal power plant producing plastic waste or are you perhaps talking about an entirely different problem that need to be addressed by separate legislation?