Yes they aren’t the same, that’s precisely why I made the distinction. Also Greenlanders are all three of Greenlandic, Danish, and EU citizens.

Doesn’t mean that they’re comfortable with Greenland University teaching e.g. pedagogics in Danish. Electrical Engineering who cares (can’t even study it in Nuuk) but pedagogics? Psychology? Law? It’s a challenge is to switch those over without hurting the quality of the programmes, the university is tiny (~600 students) and relies a lot on guest lecturers. Greenlandic independence sentiment revolves around cultural sovereignty, not around hating the Danes, everything Danish, wanting to get rid of them ASAP, or suchlike. Still, achieving independence as a state serves as a point of reference for “we actually did it, culturally, organisationally, we are strong enough”. Which isn’t easy when you’re 56k people.

Convenient of you to not address self-determination in your answer. And, no, your position is not consistent or there wouldn’t be “unfortunate necessities”. A weasel clause if there ever was one.

They definitely don’t want to be Danish, as in ethnically, but they want their Scandinavian welfare state and not be worse off independent than as they are as part of the Kingdom. It’s doubly complicated as they can’t readily join the EU without being part of Denmark, too small population-wise, the Faroese are in pretty much the same situation.

Denmark has claimed Greenland for longer than the current batch of Inuit live there. Norse settled there some 500 years before Columbus, in completely uninhabited lands. Those settlements failed, current batch of Inuit moved in, history happened. At some point Danes ceased to be assholes thus Denmark fully recognises the Inuit’s rights to self-determination, to declare independence if and when they so desire. No “unfortunate necessity” excuse why they can’t do it which you seem to believe is justifiable. There’s also no deciding for the Inuit “you must become independent, now”, like you’re doing.

Go, look in the mirror, have a long, deep, thought about who has a colonial mindset, here, and who doesn’t. Who is keen on deciding things for another people, and who isn’t.

I don’t even know whether I understand I just hear MacOS users griping about fullscreen, and a quick google gave quite recent results. Especially with fullscreen being incompatible with other windows on top (each fullscreen window necessary is on its own workspace) which would be highly annoying in Blender. You can configure blender to have file open dialogues, render results etc. in its main window, but certain stuff like preferences always open a second one.

They don’t (usually) display the temperature but they definitely sense it, and react to it. When the sensed temperature is at or higher than the set temperature, the valve will be closed, if it’s lower it will be opened. Mere valves can’t do that.

That’s what a thermostat is: A negative feedback control system regulating sensed temperature towards a setpoint, and keeping it there. They’re simple, inexpensive, reliable. Yes having the temperature sensor right next to the radiator isn’t ideal but unless the room is quite large that’s not an issue. Also with large rooms you probably have more than one heater and thus thermostat. And you could, in principle, put the thermostat far from the heater but I’ve never seen that done.

Those “valves” are, in fact, thermostats. They use thermal expansion of wax to open/close the valve to get to their set temperature. Settings 1-5 are 12, 16, 20, 24, 28 Celsius.

Can you fullscreen windows under MacOS yet?

That’s not deciding anything in the information-theoretical sense. We rely a lot on approximations and heuristics when it comes to day to day functioning.

You can’t decide the halting problem by saying “I’ll have a glance at it and go with whatever I think after thinking about it for half a second”. That’s not deciding the problem that’s giving up on it and computers are perfectly capable of doing that.

But humans can solve undecidables.

No, we can’t. Or, more precisely said: There is no version of your assertion which would be compatible with cause and effect, would be compatible with physics as we understand it.

Don’t blame me I didn’t do it. The universe just is that way.

What are you trying to argue, that humans aren’t Turing-complete? Which would be an insane self-own. That we can decide the undecidable? That would prove you don’t know what you’re talking about, it’s called undecidable for a reason. Deciding an undecidable problem makes as much sense as a barber who shaves everyone who doesn’t shave themselves.

Aside from that why would you assume that checking results would, in general, involve solving the halting problem.

No insurance is prejudicial to the good order of the EU legal framework on accidents, liability, etc. The list afterwards is not exhaustive.

Also who the fuck is going to complain. Russia? International law is whatever states get away with.

Additional ones? None, really. The EU Parliament has declared Russia as a state sponsor of terrorism since 2022, some member states went further and went with terrorist state.

Without that kind of thing sanctioning Russia to the degree we do wouldn’t even be legally possible. Should we send a hit squad after Putin? It’s not that I oppose on principle but if it was in Ukraine’s interest the SBU would have already gotten to him. Martyrs and power vacuums tend to be bad news.

The Baltics have long since gamed this out I’d suggest following their lead.

IIRC, that used to be a much more significant problem;

Yep systems that could automatically dose the fertiliser were not yet in widespread use. Farmers don’t want to over-fertilise for the simple reason that fertiliser costs money but before those systems were available it was all too easy to say “fuck it I’ll drown the field so that there’s enough everywhere”.

Not rotating crops seems to be a US thing, farmers over here never stopped doing that. There’s also EU-wide laws about having to either let land fall fallow, or plant cover crops or nitrogen fixers. You can, in principle, plant your nitrogen fixers year after year on one field and your cash crops on another, but only if you’re a complete idiot.

Under solutions, there, is written “compost” and “animal manure”. That’s fertiliser. Import-dependent agriculture is a whole another topic and I didn’t want to get into it, but long story short, no matter how good and natural your soil management is you can’t expect to export nutrients all the time and not develop a shortage. You can pull nitrogen out of the air, that’s nice, but you can’t do that with phosphate and minerals in general. Good news is that good water treatment plants will pull phosphate out of the waste water.

Modern tractors already self-drive on the field, fertiliser is applied in tightly controlled doses based on aerial analysis, that future is already there. You don’t plant or fertilise at the same time as you plough so it makes sense for those things being attachments, not integrated machines. The reason combine harvesters are dedicated machines is because they do so much in one go it doesn’t fit into a (sensibly sized) attachment.

You could also have drones distribute that fertiliser but you can’t work the soil with them, and you already have a tractor to work the soil with so you can just as well use it to apply the fertiliser. There’s also tons of odd lifting and transporting jobs on farms, that’s why there’s forklift attachments. You’ll need something with torque, low ground pressure, PTO and attachment points and well that’s a tractor.

I don’t think that tractors will ever go the way of the dodo and when you have proper logistics, say a reasonably dense S-Bahn type rail network that can also handle shipping individual containers, a tractor and a trailer is all you need as you only have to haul to the next logistics hub and there’s no truck load even 100 year old tractors can’t tow: When you can pull a plough through soil torque isn’t something you need to worry about, 20 horses at 5km/h go vroom. 20 horses! Do you know how much those eat.

They absolutely can do such things but then the money comes out of their pockets, possibly with the option to sue Rockstar for breach of contract and money back. I wouldn’t even be surprised if Rockstar contacted Valve and said “don’t worry we’ll take the hit”, having calculated what it costs to continue supporting the deck vs. taking that hit. Certainly not a company which has to worry about cashflow a lot.

Sony also refunded CP77, IIRC without getting CDPR involved, and Sony generally has a shoddy return policy. At that point, to the store, customer goodwill is more important and they’ll figure out things on the backend.

OP didn’t describe that kind of case, though, but “I bought a game without checking whether it’s compatible with my hardware and didn’t bother to launch it for six months”. Steam isn’t going to refund that out of their own pocket that’s what the 14 days are for, so that they don’t have to do it out of their own pocket.

Possibly, technical inspections. I’m not sure whether it’s a requirement for cars to be street legal or just a requirement for cars to be sold on the market. The regulation only mentions that it’s about type approval but it’s not like modifying a car automatically nullifies its type approval.

Certainly would be hard to argue for authorities that snipping the eCall would endanger others, similar situation as with seat belts I don’t think legislation is unified there.

14 days, to the developer, means that you now know that you actually have the money and can plan with it. Months later, the money has either been spent, or earmarked for something in particular.

Your best hope at that point is that the developer has allocated some money for people like you but otherwise, nope. Accounting would break down your door if you granted the refund.