As you can see from other replies:
- the French people did not care that they had to sign a paper to get out to walk
- that we closed libraries and forbade people from buying clothes in supermarkets
- that Macron has been in charge of the country's finances for over a decade with horrid results (+600B€ in debt)
- that Macron did everything he said he would not, and said a lot of things that would be treason in a reasonable civilization
We are the rooster that sings with it's feet deep in shite.
It's gonna get ugly when it hits the fan.
"the French people did not care that they had to sign a paper to get out to walk"
1- Don't you think this is quite political? Like what is your benefit from saying this out of context? If signing this paper and being stricter helped the hospitals not being saturated and saved x thousands lives do you still think it was a bad thing? (I'm not even saying that's the case I'm just saying you don't seem to take that possibility into account at all)
2- From my observations French people -constently- complain about this. So I wouldn't say they didn't care about it. You're doing it right now.
> Like what is your benefit from saying this out of context?
What does that even mean? Are you insinuating they’re being paid to say that? How do we know you’re not paid to counter them?
> If signing this paper and being stricter helped the hospitals not being saturated and saved x thousands lives do you still think it was a bad thing?
The problem is you and no one else could prove now or then that giving up my human rights would save lives. Because its all pointless lip service to take power away from the people under the guise of “protection”. Just like with encryption, personal weapons, and everything else that governments don’t want us to have.
> I'm just saying you don't seem to take that possibility into account at all
And I’m saying you haven’t taken into account that you’re an Authoritarian apologist.
>> If signing this paper and being stricter helped the hospitals not being saturated and saved x thousands lives do you still think it was a bad thing?
If banning encryption and helping police stop terrorism saved x thousand lives do you blah blah blah blah
Do programmers hang out here? The aversion to reasoning from first principle is palpable.
It certainly is political in some ways. Some people think that government shouldn't have such authority to lock people down in their homes for months on end, to spend public money on buying overpriced masks and preventive treatment that doesn't work, shouldn't pay the media to spread misinformation and definitely shouldn't have access into our lives like we're in some dystopian novel from the last century.
But hey, maybe that's not most people anyway...
France's Debt-to-GDP[0] went up about 17 points during the first year of covid, compared to Canada's 20 points. In the following years it's gone down about 3 points, which is about the same for Canada. I don't really know who else to compare France to, since Germany, UK, and USA all have their own weird complications and Italy was hit early by covid in a way that most countries were not.
No matter who was in charge of France there was going to be a giant spike in debt during at the very least covid, and now dealing with this Ukraine mess.
[0] I greatly prefer net Debt-to-GDP, which is a closer approximation to a country's actual balance sheet, as a measure, but it isn't frequently reported and most people tend not to care.
Hold your horses...
First of all not all french citizens think or act the same way, and as for the rest Macron is not the first president (and certainly not the last) to screw up.
I'm convinced that whatever president they elect, they'll complain just as much.
It might also just be because most of those claims are wrong. Unless you use 'prevent' to mean 'fully eliminate', every single one of those claims is wrong except for potentially the last one, which I am not sure of because I haven't researched.
Upon seeing the moose he should have gotten off the snowmobile and headed into the woods.
Or at least he shouldn't have went in the direction of the animal - that was his choice and he endangered himself by doing this.
I've only seen a moose once in my lifetime and that was on a somewhat crowded trail, but there was no aggression whatsoever on part of it because everyone kept their distance and didn't try to bother the animal.
The snow is too deep on either side, with too many trees to quickly and effectively turn around without getting stuck. It might work, but he could very easily have gotten stuck trying to do it. You also need to drive forward to start the turn, and the moose absolutely can outrun your snowmobile in that snow, so if it attacks you're going to have a problem.
Reverse isn't always available on snowmobiles. Even if this one had reverse, in this loose snow it would likely dig in and bury itself. I guess you've never ridden a snowmobile?
Too deep? It's maybe 30-40 cm max. A snowmobile handles that without any problems. At the end of the video, you can see that he drives "off road" off the trail without any problems.
> It might work, but he could very easily have gotten stuck trying to do it.
If that were so, don't you think that person has feet? Or is the amount of snow too much for him to walk as well?
> And since you're stereotyping him as an American above, without any knowledge or experience in such a situation on your side,
I'm from Norway. Heard of it? We have moose, snow, snowmobiles etc. You can google it.
Also: where's the guy in the video from? Do you know?
> At the end of the video, you can see that he drives "off road" off the trail without any problems.
"off road" at the end is like 5cm deep powder on top of compact snow, which has been exposed to sunlight. The snow at the beginning, where he could have tried to turn around, is completely powder because it's sheltered by trees and looks to be more like 60+cm deep. His turn radius also would have likely led him into a tree: https://imgur.com/a/bDLV2lL. Then he would need to get away from a potentially charging moose, which can top out at 56km/h. You wouldn't be able to go that fast on this narrow and winding of a trail -> the moose will catch him if it charges.
> If that were so, don't you think that person has feet? Or is the amount of snow too much for him to walk as well?
If you expect someone to get in a footrace with a charging moose in any conditions, let alone 30-40+cm deep snow, I don't know what to say.
You come across as a deeply unhappy and unpleasant person, and I wish you luck with your life.
> If you expect someone to get in a footrace with a charging moose in any conditions, let alone 30-40+cm deep snow, I don't know what to say.
The OP article actually says that it's the thing to do: "Unlike with bears or even dogs, it is usually a good idea to run from a moose because they won't chase you very far."
Say yes or no to this question: do you think the human in the video is the most aggressive animal?
> You come across as a deeply unhappy and unpleasant person
I understand that, because I care more about wildlife than idiots.
Since you've already started with the epithets: judging emergency situations from behind a keyboard is typical idiot behavior. Even if the person in the video could have acted better in hindsight, he had seconds under stress and threat to react. He is also probably more familiar with the wildlife around those parts then you are.
My behind the keyboard analysis: I don't think I would have had the courage to turn my back on a aggressive animal which is not cornered.
In most western countries these days the tax level effectively decreases with wealth, so no... they might not have contributed "disproportionately" already
Imagine a government with eleven citizens, ten of which earn a thousand dollars a year and pay 50% income tax on each dollar, while the eleventh earns one million dollars a year and pays just 10% income tax on each dollar. If the government then spends every tax dollar on building a road, that road has been ~95% paid for by one citizen and ~5% paid for by the other ten. It’s quite possible in principle for the wealthiest people to pay a lower tax rate than poorer people, yet still contribute disproportionately to public funds. (In fact something like this dynamic is indeed happening in most Western countries, the top 1% usually account for more than one third of total tax dollars paid.)
They would have contributed disproportionately in absolute numbers, which are the actual numbers that get stuff built. It is of little help to anyone to pay a 50% tax if you don't earn or have much to begin with.
Guess you never heard the joke about the Education Nationale using the term "Référentiel Bondissant" to designate balloons/balls...
Quick search indicates it was used by the Grenoble academy at one point in the 2000s XD
This said there has always been some insanities here and there in the administration - but they remain funny. I know "outil scripteur" for instance (this is a pen)
Thus making it "Fair" if we had all the variables