That doesn’t negate the fact that he already introduced tariffs on aluminum in 2018.

Trump administration imposed tariffs on EU steel in March 2025

I don’t know how old your linked article is, as it’s behind a paywall, but according to different sources aluminum US tariffs on aluminum were already implemented or increased in June 2018.

Did China also impose tariffs on EU steel in the meantime? Or, why should chinese companies copy the american companies?

The EU Packaging Waste Regulation laws which demand higher recycling rates were enacted in 2025. So considering the 2018s tariffs, US companies had reasons to import aluminum scrap for 7 more years. The increases in available scrap and on tariffs in 2025 surely strengthened this though.

That’s all very interesting, so if the your linked article is older, does that mean Chinese companies are copying US ones on this? Or maybe it’s not as simple as that. Either way, to me it sounds like the Indian-owned US subsidiary Novelis has created facilities in Europe and did not account for aluminum scrap getting bought up by other companies.

The TL;DR is misleading. The EU has not “started to recycle aluminum”. It had already done so for a long long time. I feel like the TL;DR also singles out China, seeing as it fails to mention that US companies are also increasingly importing scrap.

I suppose whether people leave also depends on a countries quality of life. From what I understand there’s the general consensus that people who can afford it and those who can make a living in another country, are the first to leave when there’s eg conflict/war/apocalypse. I’m not sure how much this affects billionaires or business owners, but assume it has at least a little effect.

Good thing children over the age of 50 had already been released.

It seems the meat lobby is way too strong. 🙄

I was expecting the third panel to consist of pulling out cards, dice or game boards and the likes.

Like every other human.

Why is only every other dead human silent? What about the other half?

You can simply take the break and socialize without the smoking part.

Minesweeper is notorious for having some luck to it.

There’s guess-free versions that guarantee solvable games. There’s also ones that automatically place a mine on the clicked tile if you take an unnecessary guess. Personally I really like https://davidnhill.github.io/JSMinesweeper with only “Fast mode” (and optionally “No guess”) enabled and everything else off.

FYI, you can see that in the source, which is linked in the description.

I agree. They very likely mean “You could / must / must not peel a banana”

Interesting to note: Brits still have a severe sewage problem (Wikipedia: Sewage discharge in the United Kingdom). Even to this day they’re often releasing untreated sewage into nature.

It doesn’t seem like trolling to me. Posts do not seem offensive and don’t seem to break any of the rules. It seems to be a strong opinion, perhaps misinformed or naive or confusing. But not flat out trolling.

its probably no use to talk with you

I think this thought is a dangerous one. It’s a sort of trap that people fall into. It’s very alluring and easy to say that. Yet I suggest people stay vigilant and brave and avoid it. Keep in mind it’s difficult for people to let go of their opinions, don’t resent them for it and try to understand their point of view, maybe there’s something in it for you to learn.

collations that ignore the first choice are not legitimate

Why so? Why do you assume that one party should arbitrarily be given more rights/power than others? Where does this idea come from?

Imagine an even more extreme example. Assume the winning party had 5% of the votes and most other parties had around 4-5% of the votes. Then assume that the winning party is unable to convince any other parties to enter into a coalition with them. Should all other parties not be allowed to make a coalition to represent 95% of the voters? Should the “winning” party be allowed to block this? Why should such deadlocks be allowed? What is the argument behind this?

This assumes the opposing party represents every other vote cast, as well that peoples votes are entirely exclusive.

Keep in mind that literally every other party announced beforehand that they would NOT enter into a coalition with this particular party under its leadership. That means any people who voted for another party must’ve accepted this.

This comment confuses me. So in your opinion, in a proper good non-failing democracy should getting less than 29% of the votes mean you get to rule over everybody and make decisions without anybody interferring? So then in other words, <29% of the population should get to decide who rules alone over 100% of the population? That sounds like it’d be a very counter-productive system.

I’d add not using Amazon Prime, Amazon Web Services and other Amazon services. Not using X, being critical of SpaceX. Also, stop advertising these things, stop telling your friends about them, maybe even stop talking about them altogether. I think for some strange reason sometimes bad press is better than no press.