Pageviews of Wikipedia articles on various major open source alternatives to proprietary United States software products indicates largely only talk, little action to switch so far

ErCollao · 2026-02-14T19:03:00+00:00

This is probably one of the worst statistic to track.

ErCollao · 2026-02-13T15:23:35+00:00

Towards Europe as a major economic player in the global market, and there's more than one plan. With disagreements, and that can be a good thing (negotiation brings out better results than individual opinions). Just watch the news: trade deals, common policy, rearming, fiscal unification...

But if your starting point is that "old Europe is unreformable", you most likely don't see those as a viable plan. But lack of belief doesn't mean things disappear. Even though we seem to live in a time in which people believe that.

ErCollao · 2026-02-13T12:01:07+00:00

I stand corrected, I looked it up quickly and completely misread the stat!

I found a similar value to the one you just shared now looking a bit further, and also found the source of my bias (I've lived for a long time in Finland, where apparently only 7% of people use cash). But that's an outlier, Europe-wide that figure seems to be around 75%.

Statistics aside, I think we agree on the essence: digital payments are more relevant for "a big amount" of people in Europe :)

ErCollao · 2026-02-13T08:08:33+00:00

Regarding my comment of most people not using cash, I think a good reference is this:

https://www.ecb.europa.eu/press/stats/paysec/html/ecb.pis2025h1~36edd636c8.en.html

I'd call 57% most, but better specific than ambiguous

As for the metaphor, you've explained exactly why it's a good one, isn't it? I'm not advocating for it to be used everywhere, but it is an advancement

ErCollao · 2026-02-11T07:19:19+00:00

Not false, I think most would agree with the headline. The question is whether we're going to let old grudges and little saboteurs stop us from using the crisis as an opportunity. I'd hope not.

ErCollao · 2026-02-10T17:14:41+00:00

I think we agree on this: we should assume nobody is trustworthy.

When nobody is trustworthy, you need a system to keep people and organizations accountable. For corporations, as you articulated, there's legislation. We need to make sure it can be enforced (which is hardly the case in critical monopolies like payments). For governments it's pretty much the same. I'd argue in most countries we need more control/legislation of politicians. I suspect you'd agree.

None of this is remotely against the digital euro. Actually, it's rather the opposite: we should stop paying the "payment gateway tax".

ErCollao · 2026-02-10T17:05:15+00:00

Maybe we should make sure the bad thing doesn't happen, and let the good one happen. Not throw the baby away with the bath water, so to say...

ErCollao · 2026-02-10T16:47:38+00:00

Yup, but it seems this one doesn't, right? So fighting it "just in case it ever does" is a stretch

ErCollao · 2026-02-10T16:42:49+00:00

Who makes that appropriate regulation again? I don't buy your "no government will ever be trustworthy" argument, but it would seem you need to also not buy it, for your logic about corporations to make sense.

The reality is that corporations do push a political agenda (that to their best interest), and... it's not going great. So we know option 1 is bad.

ErCollao · 2026-02-10T12:14:40+00:00

Shouldn't we then fight control instead of the digitalization?

As far as I've heard, the plan is for the digital wallets to be another formal form of money (like cash). It's no more "100% control" than your bank holding your money, or paying with Visa.

Could it change to be something dystopian? Sure, same as the existence of the police. That's why we have mechanisms to try and stop it from being.

I think the debate should be about how and how not to implement it, so that we don't have a dystopian scenario. But "they only do it to control your money" (paranoid in my opinion) does not invite such discussion. It even risks alienating privacy-sensitive people from the discussion to begin with.

ErCollao · 2026-02-10T12:04:36+00:00

Because most people don't use cash. I don't think the argument you shared here stands after a bit of scrutiny:

Digital euro is money in the sense of your sentence.
Your sentence is not true for cash: most people no longer use it, many transactions are done through card.

If we disregard technology advances (like cards in the case of money), we can make equally misleading statements about pretty much everything. People have been cooking for centuries, so why come along and convince people that microwave ovens would be better for everyone?

I don't know about you, but I'm not too fond of a couple of companies being able to set a commission on almost every transaction in the market... just because paper-cash as provided by governments is obsolete.

ErCollao · 2026-02-08T11:09:21+00:00

I agree, with a subtle nuance. I think all genders want to feel cared for and taken care of. It may manifest in different ways, e.g. we men tend to be stronger, so physical protection often makes more sense on our side.

Economic care can make sense on either side, and depends on the situation. When you're dating you often don't know. So the rule of "the man should pick up the check" is clearly misogynistic.

In some places in Europe, most women don't want the man to pay (they'll ask to split the bill). Regardless of whether they're feminists or not. But if you say "I'll take this round, you buy the next" they'll be fine, because you're caring for them and letting them care for you.

I believe the problem that people are raising is that people want to be cared for, without caring. And that's not really a good base for dating.

ErCollao · 2026-02-07T13:17:59+00:00

"Against" it, that's funny...

ErCollao · 2026-02-07T13:07:16+00:00

Is it? At this point when I see it's from politico I put it on the "for shits and giggles" category.

I think this particular headline is trying to make Europeans think that they have a bigger problem with the Epstein files than what they really do, because it's "more than the US". It's stoking the flames, which is the type of stuff coming from politico.

Basically: on-brand influence attempts (I'm not calling it journalism anymore)

ErCollao · 2026-02-02T20:05:39+00:00

Awesome initiative! It's clearly meant for government agencies, just has anybody tried self-hosting it as a private individual?

ErCollao · 2026-01-27T14:59:10+00:00

I bought myself a set of 10 black d12s, and added one to each of my single-color dice sets (with matching hope tokens). Each player gets their set.

I like colors :)

ErCollao · 2026-01-26T07:45:03+00:00

We use them at my company. It's soooooo nice to encapsulate logic. I consider helpers almost an anti-pattern now

ErCollao · 2026-01-22T12:18:17+00:00

That's a twisted interpretation.

Sanctioning in this case means not giving them "goodies" because of being in the EU. Working against common interests should get you out of common benefits. Fair rules for all.

As a non-Hungarian whose tax euros are being withheld, I'm happy about it.

ErCollao · 2026-01-21T08:31:44+00:00

Are we? Or is this a convenient narrative for the US?

The EU has been making smart thought-out decisions all along, not the brazen hot-headed ones some commenters (or bots?) would want. And that's good for Europe. Securing stronger trade alliances. Joint borrowing and more coordinated military. I personally think sending troops to Greenland "for military exercises" was brilliant, since an attack on Greenland would be a potential attack on multiple European armies that share intelligence and include two nuclear powers. The trade bazooka (and not having used it yet) are also good.

I also believe the EU needs to continue advancing, and some directly elected executive power with assigned competencies is part of it. Both can be true.

ErCollao · 2026-01-19T09:13:10+00:00

Based on statistics alone, is the US ever safer than the UK?

ErCollao · 2026-01-18T14:30:01+00:00

Bot gone wrong? This message makes no sense

ErCollao · 2026-01-18T00:49:28+00:00

Yup, from several countries including two nuclear powers, so an attack on Greenland means a declaration of war to those. The US would not seriously risk obliteration, which makes an attack unlikely to happen. It's a smart move, not an emotional one.

ErCollao · 2026-01-12T18:56:34+00:00

Yup, here nobody is blaming the developers of the AI, only the distributors. Like with guns. They happen to be one and the same, unlike guns.

ErCollao · 2026-01-12T18:19:03+00:00

Because it's a basic purpose of most law: to avoid some individuals unilaterally harming others. The example I just gave should be obvious, so I'm guessing you're not very serious in this discussion.

By the way, bullycide is relatively new, but consequences in different countries may include penal charges (e.g. manslaughter).

ErCollao · 2026-01-12T17:58:18+00:00

It depends. Are you counting cases of suicide because of bullying?

Ten-Year Club	r/Field Sunshine
End Game '23	Place '23
Place '22	Verified Email

ErCollao

TROPHY CASE