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.

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.

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

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

The government points out in the budget that at least seven other countries, including the U.K., France, Italy and Spain, already have similar taxes in place.

Come on, they’ve already listed four, why not mention the remaining three?

One should acknowledge that this is not on Netflix alone.
Other media companies pulling their content to set up their own streaming services has fractured the market and made each individual service much worse in the process.

the content you like

The content I like is on youtube though

why didn’t they decide to “phase out coal” instead?

23 years ago, under Schröder they wanted to phase out both and massively subsidize renewables.
Later those plans were largely axed under Merkel.

The reason why coal has a strong standing in Germany is that it is one of the few natural resources the country has.
It has long been a staple in certain political circles to justify coal subsidies by pointing to the many jobs tied to coal mining.
Nevermind that they had no problem throwing jobs in the solar industry under the bus when they cut subsidies for that.

Ok, since the title and summary really don’t explain at all what the problem is, I think those two paragraphs are much better:

Two senior officials following the proposal, who were granted anonymity to speak candidly, say concerns are growing within Ukraine’s anti-graft agencies that Zelenskyy’s plan will take top corruption cases away from their oversight and pass them to the Security Service of Ukraine (SBU), which falls under the president’s command.

The SBU could, potentially, have the power to bury corruption cases involving top officials. The move, the officials say, could put Ukraine’s anti-corruption infrastructure under threat, and anti-corruption watchdogs are sounding the alarm.

But Politico, owned by very agenda-driven Axel Springer SE are hardly an unbiased an neutral news source these days.
Some of what they write here is not very consistent:

As journalists and anti-graft organs start to uncover more alleged corruption schemes during the first months of Russian President Vladimir Putin’s invasion which began in February 2022, Zelenskyy thinks those days were so tough that officials should be cut some slack.

“February and March 2022 — it was a fight for the existence of Ukraine. If I see the corruption cases dated that time, I demand solid evidence. If there is one [evidence], the guilty must be punished by court, not public opinion,” Zelenskyy said in a televised interview. “As for my idea of equating corruption to state treason during wartime, I think it will be a very serious instrument to make them not even think about it [corruption].”

How does “I want solid evidence and then I want it to be counted as treason” equate to cutting someone some slack?

But where does all the excess energy go?

Down the toilet

Tbf rent control doesn’t solve the problem of scarcity.

Male asylum seekers are a real problem and are over represented in crime. Just this summer a 13 year old girl was gang raped by five (5) non European asylum seekers in our little town.

If the point you’re trying to make is that they are over-represented in crime statistics then it would have been better to cite those statistics instead of one singular incident.

Doesn’t necessarily mean the Olympics were in their right.
More likely that the salami maker wanted to avoid / could not afford a legal battle.

You mean, the SUV which sits in my driveway?

‘Driveways’ in Hamburg Harvestehude:
https://goo.gl/maps/Ti3yVmXxCfoGozoy9
https://goo.gl/maps/MBHi6tHAfMALoPH38

Protests need to be disruptive to be effective, yes, but I would wager this either alienates people

What kind of disruptive protest that doesn’t alienate people would you suggest instead?
When they blocked roads, people were pissed.
When they blocked an airport, people were pissed.
When they planted trees on a golf course, people were pissed.

I thought that was Kazakhstan?

it can actually convey the point we’re discussing:

I’ve understood the point you are making from the beginning.

I just refuse to engage with it, because I’m not discussing enegy policy in the first place.

Your argument still boils down to the same logical fallacy that I’ve addressed already.

No, my Argument since the first comment in this comment chain is that there are multiple sources of power other than coal and nuclear and no matter how often you point out that France has a lower CO2 footprint or how Germany could have prioritized phasing out coal, that very fact remains true and more importantly completely unaddressed.

They chose to replace nuclear and keep coal, which is the same difference as if nuclear was replaced with coal.

Talking about logical fallacies then arguing with this. You have two cars, a Pickup and an SUV. You sell your Pickup and get a Prius.
Have you replaced your Pickup with an SUV?