Humanius

So they can bitch that people booed, but he won’t acknowledge the reason is he raped a literal child?

Mathew Immers is not the guy who raped the child. That is Steven van de Velde.
Immers is van de Velde's beach volleyball partner.

Wasn't the TGV sabotage attack also targeted at the fiber-optics lines? Wouldn't be surprised if they were related.
Or maybe these people just really dislike fiber-optics, and are in the pockets of big copper /j

A mix of Spotify (I have a premium account there), and my own collection of CDs which I have ripped and can access via Jellyfin for higher audio quality.

AirBnB is already severly restricted in several parts of Amsterdam (though a court ruling last year did overturn those restrictions in some neighbourhoods)

I think you are missing the point why people take issue with overtourism.

Amsterdam isn't a themepark, it's a city where people actually live, grew up, have lives. And overtourism tends to hollow out what makes the city authentic. The houses get converted to AirBnB's and hotels, the regular shops, pubs and restaurants can't find regular customers anymore so start catering to tourists instead, etc. This results in a sort of Disneylandification of your city. It's generally a nuisance to the inhabitants of a city.
Ultimately a city is for the people who live there, not the people who visit.

Tourism can be good for the local economy, but there is only so much people are willing to put up with.

Edit: Also, old hotels are allowed to be renovated, as long as the number of sleeping places in the city doesn't increase

A new hotel in Amsterdam can only be built if another hotel closes, if the number of sleeping places doesn't increase, and if the new hotel will be better, for example more sustainable.

Amsterdam has had an issue with overtourism long before NJB was making videos.

If the situation in Germany is anything like the Netherlands, it legit is just a shortage of workers outright.

There are more job vacancies than people to fill those vacancies, so you end up with a shortage of workers.
Making tram driving more attractive by paying them more would draw employees away from other industries, who also need people to do the work.

Not saying tram drivers shouldn't be paid more, but if the situation in this German city is anything like what we are dealing with here in the NL, then paying people more is not going to solve the issue. Only solution is to either decrease the number of open positions (which usually only happens in a recession, which is not great), or to increase the number of people who can do the work (for example through immigration)

Edit: A possible solution specifically in the case of trams could be automation (self-driving trams), which would relax the overall demand for workers.
There are already transportation system without drivers that have been operating since the 80s (e.g. the London DLR)

It's probably a bit more tricky in mixed traffic, but since trams are on predictable rails it would be easier than automating cars.

Google Pixel 6a

Keep in mind:

• $1149 / month is the average, meaning there is cheaper places out there (probably depending on location)
• Not everyone earns minimum wage, there are plenty of people who earn above minimum wage
• Just because there might be issues with cohabitation, does not mean that living alone doesn't seem to correlate with higher rates of depression

The new study comes at a time when the number of single person households in the U.S. has skyrocketed. In the decade from 2012 to 2022, the number of Americans living alone jumped by nearly 5 million to 37.9 million.

There is clearly a lot of people who can afford to live alone, and for some reason they appear to be at a higher risk of depression.
Dismissing the existence of this group is not going to solve that problem.

The ICJ has not said that Israel is definitively committing genocide

https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/key-takeaways-world-court-decision-israei-genocide-case-2024-01-26/

The [ICJ] ordered Israel to refrain from any acts that could fall under the Genocide Convention and to ensure its troops commit no genocidal acts in Gaza.
"At least some of the acts and omissions alleged by South Africa to have been committed by Israel in Gaza appear to be capable of falling within the provisions of the (Genocide) Convention," the judges said.

The ICJ has said that there is a possibility that some of the allegations that South-Africa has brought forward might fall under the definition genocide.
That is not a definitive statement. That is saying that further investigation is justified.

I have also not seen the Israeli government openly calling for genocide or the extermination of the Palestinian people. However, I have seen plenty of instances of the Israeli government calling for the elimination of Hamas.
It could be that "Hamas" is a veiled placeholder for "Palestinians", but it could also very well be that they are specifically talking about the terrorist group.

My problem is not the suggestion that it might be genocide. I'm not even entirely convinced that it isn't. My problem is people claiming that it is definitely, factually, genocide, while referencing statements by courts that have never been made.

Prime-minister Rutte was literally with Netanyahu today calling for a cease-fire and for Israel tone down the attacks.
The Netherlands may be an ally of Israel, but they are hardly saying "Israel can do no wrong"

https://nos.nl/collectie/13959/liveblog/2508505-rutte-raadt-netanyahu-grondoffensief-af-don-t-do-it-israel-wil-door-tot-hamas-verslagen-is#UPDATE-container-75378003

You claim that Israel is "factually" committing genocide, but there are legitimate reasons why people are hesitant to outright call what is going on in Gaza a genocide.

On Wikipedia the definition of genocide is as follows:

In 1948, the United Nations Genocide Convention defined genocide as any of five "acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group". These five acts were: killing members of the group, causing them serious bodily or mental harm, imposing living conditions intended to destroy the group, preventing births, and forcibly transferring children out of the group. Victims are targeted because of their real or perceived membership of a group, not randomly.

Key part in this definition that people generally get hung up on in the case of the Gaza, is the "intent to destroy".

Very few people are arguing that Israel is not extremely heavy-handed with their actions in Gaza, to the point that they have likely committed war crimes against the civilians of Gaza. However it is insanely difficult to prove that there is an "intent to destroy" in full, or in part, the Palestinian people in Gaza as a national, ethnical, racial or religious group.

There are plausible explanations as to why the current operation might not meet that definition.

Maybe it is a genocide.. Maybe the Israeli army is merely very heavy-handedly eradicating a terrorist group, with a high civilian death toll as a side-effect.. The latter is almost definitely a war crime, but it is not necessarily a genocide. We simply do not have the full picture yet.

I think editorializing actual statements made by the court to make them sound like they support the case for genocide, only serves to muddy the discussion. And I take pretty big issue with that.

Edit: Small disclaimer.. I'm talking in this case about what is currently going on in Gaza.
What is going on in the West-Bank with the settlers is a different matter.

That situation I consider to be ethnic displacement, at the very least, committed by the settlers with the full support of the Israeli government.