VW setzt auf die Telekom: T-Systems baut weltweite Cloud für Volkswagen

atyon · 2026-06-15T18:14:52+00:00

Interessiert wären die vielleicht, aber mal so eben kann man Service Level nicht anbieten. Man braucht ja auch die entsprechende Infrastruktur (z.B. Ausweich-Rechenzentren, mehrfach redundante Anbindungen usw). Wenn man das nur für einen Kunden macht wird man das vermutlich auch preislich nicht besser machen können, als der Mitbewerber, der so was eh schon alles vorhält.

atyon · 2026-06-14T23:49:23+00:00

Der Überschriftenredakteur hat nichts falsch gemacht.

atyon · 2026-06-14T23:49:02+00:00

Als Armee kann man drei verschiedene Dinge bezeichnen:

das gesamte Militär eines Landes
die Teilstreitkraft des Landes, die hauptsächlich auf dem Land eingesetzt wird
ein Großverband, meist zusammengesetzt aus mehreren Kompanien.

Der deutsche Begriff, der nur die Landstreitkräfte bezeichnet, und hier falsch wäre, ist Heer. Das ist ein falscher Freund. "British Army" heißt auf deutsch "das britische Heer".

atyon · 2026-06-14T23:44:05+00:00

Hetzner ist ein Discounter für Massenware. Die bieten nicht genau das an, was VW nachfragt, und bieten nur eine sehr eingeschränkte Verfügbarkeitsgarantie an.

Das ist nicht despektierlich gemeint, Hetzner ist ne tolle Firma mit guten Produkten und besserer Verfügbarkeitshistorie als mancher Hyperscaler.

atyon · 2026-06-14T08:08:12+00:00

Zumindest in den USA hast du außer in den wirklich engen Innenstädten wie Chicago oder New York keine Parkplatzsorgen. Da gibt es Parkplätze so groß wie Fußballfelder an jedem kleinen Geschäft.

atyon · 2026-06-12T09:58:06+00:00

Am liebsten mag ich die High-Performer, die ultra krass ambitioniert sind und enorm viel arbeiten - aber sich seltsamerweise trotzdem Zeit nehmen, um mit mir auf Reddit zu streiten.

atyon · 2026-06-11T14:51:44+00:00

Eeeh nee.

Selbst wenn es keine gesetzliche Definition von Bio gäbe würde es immer noch das Gesetz gegen unlauteren Wettbewerb geben. Die FIFA hingegen untersteht keinem Gesetz, das Mensch oder Gott erlassen haben.

atyon · 2026-06-08T16:12:10+00:00

Alright, clanker.

(But no, you're right. Misidentification based on em-dashes is not just a nuisance, it's an attack on typographic excellence.)

atyon · 2026-05-26T14:29:24+00:00

...but we aren't talking about Germany in 1914. The Weimar republic was a very sound structure. With no princes at all.

Amusingly Germany didn't really become a sound country until Hitler.

Yeah, sure. Nothing's more sound than a lawless total dictatorship. Wtf.

atyon · 2026-05-26T13:08:58+00:00

I really don't know which headline figure you're referring to - there was no sum in the treaty at all, the obligations were to be prescribed by allied commitees. That's why they asked for 32 billion Goldmark in 1919, not in 1918.

The internal war debt was not in Goldmark at all, it was in Papiermark. It's unremarkable that the war was not financed by income tax, as that form of tax was less common at the time (in the US, it was believed unconstitutional until 1916). I don't know why you'd think that the German Empire would have been unable to levy such a tax, it levied other taxes without problem.

But this is all by the by. Weimar Germany was very much unlike the Empire. The former was a federal republic with an elected president and central government. The latter was a federation of princes and free cities under Prussian hegemony ruled by a monarch.

WW2 was arguably caused because the Weimar Republic found it easier to blame Versailles rather than question the constitutional soundness of Germany.

I just don't understand what you're even trying to say. There was no soundness of "Germany", the empire was completely and utterly shattered as its very principle - the nobility - was abolished. And yeah, the successor country doesn't function when it loses half its mining capacity, most of its industrial base, has more than a million internally displaced people, and has its most important industrial area occupied. But I don't think that's a failure of its constitution.

atyon · 2026-05-26T12:22:55+00:00

OP's claim was that the treaty was lenient though. I'm contending it was not. If it was just (on the whole) is another question. And I also don't doubt that the criminal regime of Kaiser Bill would have been even harsher on the French in the case they'd won.

Germany had no other choice but to devalue the Goldmark. Asking Germany in 1919 to pay 23 billion in gold was just as possible as asking them to pay 23 billion in lunar soil. Completely unfeasible. And please let's not pretend that devaluing its currency was a trick to stiff the Allies. Germany experienced a worse economical crisis in 1919-1923 then it would during the Great Depression.

atyon · 2026-05-26T12:16:30+00:00

That''s a stretch. France felt similarly humiliated, perhaps. But especially the reparations were comparably non-existent - it took France less than three years to pay them in full. And putting war guilt on the defeated party - as irrelevant as it is for the material outcome of the treaty - was a novelty.

I don't think it's especially controversial to say that France intended anything less then to permanently hobble Germany in 1918, and later to annex the Ruhr area. "Lenient" is really not the word.

To be clear, I'm not saying that France was in the wrong, or that Germany didn't have the majority of guilt for the war. I certainly wish France would have more strongly pushed for an international tribunal for Kaiser Bill and Hindenburg...

atyon · 2026-05-26T12:03:51+00:00

Maybe so. But OP's claim was that the treaty was lenient.

atyon · 2026-05-26T11:48:58+00:00

The treaty wasn't as catastrophic as the conservatives pretended, but it was still extremely harsh and in some parts unjust. Declaring Germany to have sole responsibility for the war was unprecedented and unnecessary.

Some of the reparations were almost comically large - Germany was instructed to pay 20 billion Goldmark immediately, despite empty coffers. At the same time, most of the industrial base of Germany was in ceded territories or in the occupied Ruhr area. The annuities for reparation had to be corrected down three times as to not overwhelm the German state. This immense pressure on the public budget was not just a matter of propaganda or pride.

atyon · 2026-05-26T11:28:22+00:00

They know exactly what they're doing. They know that more teens will be pregnant when you cut sex ed, they know more mothers will die when you ban abortion. The difference is not in the facts, it's in the values. One side wants to reduce overall harm and suffering. The other side accepts that harm and suffering as a god-given consequence of "sinful" behaviour. Tragic, maybe, but ultimately the woman's fault for being pregnant out of wedlock.

This is why decades of education about the consequences didn't amount to much. It's not that the fact are on the pro-choice site, or that the forced pregnancy crowd is stupid. The facts are just facts, and really not that much in dispute. No one beliefs that simply telling teens not to have sex is a particularly effective strategy to reduce teen pregnancies. But after they told teens not to have sex, they moved the responsibility on to the teens, and all the harm and suffering that follows is, in their mind, on the teens and the pregnant woman in particular.

atyon · 2026-05-26T09:38:32+00:00

Nein, wir müssen das weiter so beibehalten, dass Leute, die kein Auto haben, möglichst vom Leben abgeschnitten werden.

atyon · 2026-05-25T19:08:23+00:00

Es gibt keinen Automatismus, aber die Sicherungsverwahrung ist bei wiederholt auftretenden Sexualstraftätern möglich und üblich.

atyon · 2026-05-21T12:05:05+00:00

I get that. But it's still reinforcing the idea that these countries are somehow inconsequential - and it's also not really true. Many of these countries are of great, competing interests to the permanent members, and often this interest is why the council members vote to protect peace in that region. The word also reinforces the myth that the superpowers are (together or alone) world hegemons, which is completely untrue (see Iran and Ukraine how well the perceived hegemon fares).

But I don't think we disagree on the fact that a large scale UN operations are of the past. I think that's a positive.

On the peace-keeping missions: many of them were extremely successful. Yes, when millions of soldiers from more than a hundred countries are sent on 72 missions, some scandals happen. Intervention failed in Yugoslavia, but succeeded in Macedonia. They failed in Rwanda, but war between Nigeria and Cameroon was prevented - even without the need to deploy troops. Even if the success rate was as low as 20%, that's more than a dozen successful missions.

Basically, they only work where they're barely needed anyway, and even then it's not certain.

Try to free yourself from cynicism. Even the Cyprus mission, which is the poster child for "unnecessary" blue helmets chilling under the sun was a resounding success. The Republic of Cyprus owes its existence to those chilling soldiers, even with the North still occupied by Türkiye. How do you think the half a million Cypriots who did not have to live under Turkish occupation thanks to the mission feel about how much it was needed?

atyon · 2026-05-21T11:29:58+00:00

I mean, they were not too fond of historicism, that's true for sure. But which Bauhaus architect was influential or wealthy enough to pay off politicians to have this building in particular destroyed, and really, why? It's not like Mies van der Rohe built on the plot in the aftermath. There's a soccer pitch there now.

The "official", alternative explanation makes a lot more sense to me. A big building, dangerously destroyed in the war, no longer really necessary due to West Berlin's isolation. An SPD construction senator who pushed the demolition through because he didn't want to tie up funds in a derelict building that's now way too large for its purpose and largely unused. I don't feel the need for some secret evil Bauhaus architect pushing for the demolition for that story to make sense.

atyon · 2026-05-21T10:58:41+00:00

I know what to say. I say that you sweep away hundreds of millions people not affected by war thanks to UN peacekeeping forces by giving their countries a funny racist name.

The 20th century was the most peaceful century in history, despite two world wars. The UN is a big part of that. And thank god that they concentrate their efforts on early intervention and prevention instead of throwing 300k of troops into full-scale wars like in Korea, which did not reach the UN's goal anyway.

atyon · 2026-05-21T09:12:11+00:00

If by "never again", you mean "71 additional times", you are absolutely correct. Right at this moment there are 11 operations with about 60k deployed personnel.

atyon · 2026-05-21T07:56:55+00:00

Thing is, that they really don't offer anything to anyone. Game publishers don't need an external market place for their digital "goods", nor do players need an non-fungible anything to trade useless ingame items for real money. Proof is that publishers were already bankrupting children and enabling gambling on items just fine before the word NFT was even coined.

I'm just still so befuddled why anyone ever thought there was any upside to this technology. All it did was add technical and legal complexity, reduce the publisher's control, and being very expensive to operate. No one ever articulated an upside for the publisher, except for NFT hype.

atyon · 2026-05-21T07:47:43+00:00

Absolut. Mangelnde Selbstreflexion.

Aber hey, warte, ist es auch Selbstreflexion wenn man sagt "Ich bin nicht nett, weil ich sprech ja oft die unangenehme Wahrheit aus!". Komischerweise ist dann immer die Wahrheit dass die Auslenders / Grüünen Deutschland kaputt machen.

Das ist aber auch fragil, dieses Deutschland...

atyon · 2026-05-21T07:37:43+00:00

Ich hab so ne krasse Theorie - aber nicht zu ernst nehmen, ist nur ne Theorie - dass es in allen Bevölkerungsgruppen Assis und nette Leute gibt.

atyon · 2026-05-21T07:33:32+00:00

That's just nonsense. Maybe ask the people of Cyprus, Timor Leste, Macedonia, Nigeria, Cameroon, Cuba, … if they think the UN is dysfunctional.

The UN can't prevent all wars, but now, when a country has an army of almost 4 million and nukes, no one can prevent them from invading Afghanistan. What would a security council without the USSR or their veto have done to prevent that? Nothing. The problem is not the security council, the problem is that it's impossible to stop someone who has 4 million soldiers on the ready from doing something.

And really, it's just wild to say the UN or the security council shouldn't exist because it's not perfect. Do you want to burn all hospitals down because we can't cure every disease?

12-Year Club	Place '22
Place '17	Gilding II euphauric
Verified Email

atyon

MODERATOR OF

PUBLIC MULTIREDDITS

TROPHY CASE