golli

I envy you, I definitely tend towards feeling too cold. But at the same time as you said after a few miles it gets warmer, so getting the balance right isn't always easy. But at least where i am at it doesn't get -20°C. Keeping my ears/fingers warm is definitely one of the important things.

Ears is always a bit harder, because the band of my shokz headphones can make things a bit akward, since just putting on a hat above them imo isn't as comfortable since it puts some pressure on them. The solution that worked so far is that i got a headband, where i cut small holes behind the ears to route the headphone band through.

Thanks for adding another source with some more context

The issue is that as someone already mentioned i doubt something like that was ever truly on the table.

I think you can't give assurances like that in a vacuum. If a nation e.g. the US would grant them, they'd only do so while simultaniously building up a physical presence in the territory and possibly also do deeper integrations military wise. You wouldn't give such strong assurances while weakening your own ability to act on them.

For Russia that would have never been acceptable.

Since I see this claim constantly: where in the Budapest memorandum did they promise protection?

Looking at the Wikipedia summary nowhere does anyone give security assurances similar to NATO article 5 or the even stronger worded mutual defense clause article 42 TEU of the EU. The closest it comes to is in the fourth point, but that is only in the case of nuclear weapons being used. Which obviously hasn't happened yet. Beyond that it is just a promise not to attack, which Russia has broken, but every other singator has kept. And as far as I can see it does not contain anything that compells others to act on someone else's breach.

Pennsylvania jetzt auch offiziell republikanisch. Schon krass wie deutlich es am Ende wird.

(disclaimer that this is purely my impression from what i've seen mentioned online, not firsthand knowledge)

Which isn't necessarily mutually exclusive. I was under the impression that the problems have more to do with high workloads and work environments that are chronically understaffed, not necessarily because of low salaries. Not claiming that all nurses are payed well, but it seems like that at least in the US there is a somewhat reasonable path to making good money (assuming you are willing to switch jobs and maybe continue to get sought after qualifications along the way).

That makes sense. I can definitely see consulting work paying top dollar in many different professions.

But that seems to me like she has carved out a lucrative niche for herself, which wouldn't scale as advice for a larger number of people. Whereas with the other professions you can probably make good money even just doing more "regular" work.

Physical therapists, nurses and people that went into trades I can see making good money, but social workers I am kind of surprised to hear. I thought those were for the most part not paid as well compared to how taxing their jobs can be.

Of course you also need to know the month, but similar to the year i would argue that there are plenty of times where the month is evident from context. So the informational value is lower than the day.

I don't want to argue that this is an absolute thing, but i'd say that quantitatively there are more times where you only need the day compared to very few times where you only need the month for example.

I'd agree that yyy.mm.dd is probably the best for sorting reasons, but imo dd.mm.yyyy also has at least some logic in an everyday setting. Usually the order of relevance for everyday appointments is the day, then month, then year. Oftentimes the year has no informational value at all, since it is implied, e.g. for an upcoming birthday.

Kann mir jemand erklären, was denn jetzt genau noch der Unterschied zwischen Bürgergeld und Hartz 4 ist außer der Name?

Was mich persönlich extremst irritiert ist, dass es überhaupt erlaubt ist neben einem Job bei den Stadtwerken gleichzeitig Nebentätigkeiten wie z.B. Aufsichtsrat in großen Energieunternehmen nachzugehen. Das ist doch ein Paradebeispiel von systematischem Interessenkonflikt, den man als Arbeitgeber prinzipiell ausschließen sollte, denn es besteht ja eine direkte Verkäufer/Kunden-Beziehung.

Das kann doch der Logik nach nur schief gehen, denn letztlich sind sie dadurch beiden Arbeitgebern gegenüber Verpflichtet in ihrem Interesse zu handeln. Aber der Gewinn der einen Seite, ist oft genug der Verlust der anderen.