No, the current austerity measures are due to the national debt crisis in 2023, before the last parliamentary election. Even Yle acknowledged this beforehand.
You're blaming the "current" Finnish government for austerity measures and implicitly removing blame from the previous administration for driving up the debt in the first place. I would just blame "the Finnish government" (over all administrations).
Uh, no. The unemployment is due to this govt. The austerity measures have led to purchasing power dwindling, leading to lowering domestic demand, and changes to unemployment, removing the possibility to do part-time work while on benefits has disincentivized people from becoming employed.
These austerity measures have made the Finnish welfare system more U.S.-like. This is all I'm commenting on. My initial comment did not assign blame, it simply described the situation.
The debt issue is separate from this point, since we're not talking about why these measures were made. But the debt is definitely not due to the previous govt. If you look at the data, the debt has been an issue since 2008 (just as it has been worldwide).
It is not intuitive at all to me. From the article, I can see that there's some sort of penalty by having more billionaires in the country, and that somehow leads to "the time needed to earn $1 is 63 minutes in the US", which doesn't really line up with the fact that minimum wage per hour ranges from $7-$18 depending on the state.
The "old" way was to measure median net PPP per capita, which makes more sense to me:
The figure you linked to is particularly unintuitive. It shows income per household, divided by square root of household size. There are plenty of complex and unpredictable interactions with heuristics like that. For example, if housing becomes more affordable, young people may move out sooner. Then there will be more small households with low incomes, which may bring the reported income down.
Its part of La Suite which began planning in 2023. This is clearly marked in the linked README. Don't bring /r/politics level misinfo and speculation here.
I think Surveillance Globalism would be a more apt description. Which is a hundred times scarier since its coming from the government, multiple governments around the world simultaneously, and its about control rather than making money off you.
That is the user's solution. Patreon (the company having trouble with Apple) is not in the position to get ~50% of it's users to use a different phone.
Apple should not be allowed to be in the middle of business and half the users of the world.
And yes, that is very much something that governments have regulated for decades. In fact it's basically why anti-trust was invented. Train companies and deals with Standard Oil meant together they controlled the market since if you didn't go through them you couldn't ship your product.
Android is actively in the process of trying to kill off the ability to install your own software that is not Google-approved, so this is temporary solution at best.
That's only a solution until Google does the same. And then we're stuck. What do we do when the two largest phone platforms perform this stuff? Go off the grid instead of talking to our representatives?
I've been all over the USA, continental Europe, and Japan, and there have always been water fountains. Granted, I've never been to one of the "don't drink the tap water" countries.
I just had this experience at CDG, at the AA gate. I really don't know why people seem to think this is a made up problem. You may have found drinkable water at your gate, but airports are big, and your experience is not universal.
So at the end of the day its still unclear whether it executes code or not? Just say "this WILL execute code" and specify exactly which code it tries to execute by default.
I don't know about you people, but I always read this as "it may execute code if you run a build step".
Not "I will execute autorun.inf like an idiot."
And NO. I do not want my IDE to execute code when i open files for editing. I want it to execute code only as part of an explicit step that I initiate.
>You're warned when you open a folder whether you trust the origin/authors with pretty strong wording.
I can see the exact message you're referring to in the linked article. It says "Code provides features that *may* automatically execute files in this folder." It keeps things ambiguous and comes off as one of the hundreds of legal CYA pop-ups that you see throughout your day. Its not clear that "Yes, I trust the authors" means "Go ahead and start executing shell scripts". Its also not clear what exactly the difference is between the two choices regarding how usable the IDE is if you say no.
"May" is the most correct word though, it's not guaranteed and VS Code (core) doesn't actually know if things will execute or not as a result of this due to extensions also depending on the feature. Running the "Manage Workspace Trust" command which is mentioned in the [docs being linked][0] to goes into more detail about what exactly is blocked, but we determined this is probably too much information and instead tried to distill it to simplify the decision. That single short sentence is essentially what workspace trust protects you from.
My hope has always been, but I know there are plenty of people that don't do this, is to think "huh, that sounds scary, maybe I should not trust it or understand more", not blinding say they trust.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artemis_program#Redefinition_a...
reply