Milei wird gern abstrakt als Vorbild für Reformen in Deutschland zitiert. Allerdings sind dessen Vertreter sehr vage mit konkreten Ideen. Daher hier eine Auflistung von Maßnahmen für Deutschland, die vergleichbar sind mit denen in Argentinien. (Es wird heftig!) 1/10

This must be the so called "free Palestine"

This seems like a great time to reshare my favourite Sir Patrick Stewart performance, ‘What has the ECHR ever done for us?’ It’s just perfect in every possible way … including the ending 😂😂😂 RIP. 🎥 The Guardian

That new de Gaulle film looks better than I thought.

It’s unintentionally funny. Ironically the Great Firewall is doing some heavy lifting for China's public relations. Imagine having to share the internet with all of them.

Nein. Das ist nur die Folge der Gentrifizierung. Früher war dies das Szeneviertel, jetzt ist das halt anderswo weil die dortigen Bewohner im Schnitt älter werden.

Früher war die Dienstwagenregelung das emotionalste Thema im Unternehmen, jetzt ist es die Frage, wie oft im Home Office gearbeitet werden kann.

British comedy really peaked in the 2000s. Peaceful protesters start chanting “War is wrong”… then one guy starts listing exceptions and it completely falls apart. Watch what the signs turn into at the end. Absolute chaos. 😂

Höchst interessante Berechnung. Um die Demographie der Bevölkerung zu verbessern sind vor allem die ersten Jahre nach Geburt der Kinder entscheidend. Hier sind finanzielle und personelle Unterstützung für Familien am wichtigsten.

Es wurde wirklich Zeit, dass die NATO diese Angriffe stoppt. Ansonsten hätte sich die Allianz auch lächerlich gemacht

Es ist ein Skandal, dass Russland in NATO Gebiet Schiffe Versenken spielt.

Considering the repeated calls to replace Starlink in the EU, followed by the usual snarky comments, mostly from Americans, about how SpaceX is "irreplaceable" and Europe is supposedly incapable of competing, I think it's worth looking at some facts. First of all, EU countries have launched hundreds of satellites over the past decade, with annual deployments growing from just 16 in 2015 to 135 in 2025. Eutelsat OneWeb already provides continuous coverage across Europe with more than 600 satellites On top of that, the EU is developing IRIS², a constellation of ~350 satellites, with the first launches scheduled for 2029. The EU's GOVSATCOM programme has already been operational since January 2026, pooling satellite capacity from member states for secure government communications. Now, let's get to the actual argument. Is Europe behind SpaceX, with its thousands of satellites in orbit? Absolutely. At the moment, it's not even close. Starlink has significantly cheaper consumer terminals, much greater network capacity, a larger constellation and a far more accessible service for ordinary customers. No argument here. But that's also part of the problem. Starlink is simply a better and more affordable product for most consumers right now, so customers and government contracts naturally gravitate towards SpaceX, making it harder for European competitors to attract the revenue and investment needed to catch up. Let's also not pretend SpaceX appeared out of nowhere. It benefited from decades of American aerospace infrastructure, NASA research, publicly funded programs and government contracts, alongside its own substantial private capital Putting a European startup, or even a single country's space agency, against that entire ecosystem is a losing proposition from the beginning. But why should it stay that way? Europe already has the aerospace industry, launch facilities, technological expertise and financial resources to develop a competitive alternative. To launch satellites successfully and cheap you need to decrease the launch cost. Currently, European rocket Ariane 6 is generally more expensive than Falcon 9, and Europe still lacks a comparable operational reusable launcher. But projects like Themis and Maia are already in development. If Europe keeps pouring money into SpaceX, how exactly do you expect these European projects to become competitive? The same applies to satellite terminals. SpaceX has excelled at mass-producing consumer-friendly equipment costing a few hundred dollars, while comparable OneWeb equipment can cost several thousand. But that advantage comes from economies of scale, production efficiency, mass adoption and, sometimes, subsidising hardware to gain market share. You can't have mass adoption if you mass adopt Starlink Europe doesn't need to replicate Starlink's entire global network to build a viable alternative. The objective is sufficient coverage, capacity and reliability across Europe and neighbouring regions, not necessarily every random island in the Pacific or remote village in the Brazilian Amazon - something that SpaceX does much better. That's a much more realistic objective than immediately matching Starlink worldwide. There are several ways to achieve this: direct investment, research funding, initial subsidies, long-term government contracts and procurement policies prioritising European satellite providers wherever feasible, particularly for critical infrastructure. In strategically sensitive areas, I'd go even further and eliminate dependence on SpaceX entirely wherever a viable European alternative exists. Which brings us to national security. Starlink is an American commercial system subject to US jurisdiction, while Starshield is specifically designed for US government and military customers. Starlink's own terms allow the company to suspend services following requests or orders from government agencies. Now imagine a hypothetical scenario where the US attempts to annex Greenland militarily. Would you really want critical European communications infrastructure dependent on an American company that could could simply switch off everything on political demand? You simply cannot outsource your country's critical communications infrastructure to a foreign provider and pretend there are no strategic risks involved. I don't like writing it, but US is not a reliable partner. And beyond security, it's also about money and long-term economics. European money, investment and talent should stay in Europe, not continuously flow to America. Do you want European aerospace graduates to have actual career opportunities in Europe, instead of feeling they need to move to the US? Do you want European companies building rockets, satellites, manufacturing facilities and research centres, creating skilled jobs and attracting investment? None of that happens if your entire strategy is to keep buying American Starlink terminals while complaining that European alternatives are too expensive or technologically inferior. There's a massive difference between saying Europe cannot fully replace Starlink today and claiming that Europe is fundamentally incapable of developing a competitive alternative, while quoting memes about muslim immigrants and plastic bottle caps. And if Europe keeps financing its competitors instead of building its own capabilities, SpaceX will indeed remain "irreplaceable". Not because Europe can't compete, but because it is not committed to the competition.

Jetzt, da die Datenzentren ausfallen: Bin gespannt, wie lange es dauert, bis der Bankrun in Russland losgeht. Möglich, dass nicht einmal das klappt, wenn einfach alle Institute aus technischen Gründen schließen. Der Schaden wäre unermesslich.

Sehr interessant: Zufällig seitdem Jens Spahn nicht mehr Teilnehmer der Sitzungen des CDU Präsidiums ist, gibt es von dort keine Leaks vertraulicher Informationen mehr.

Russia went from Internet to Internyet

Es dürfte die nächsten Tage etwas ruhiger werden auf Twitter. Die Zahl der #afd Dullies sollte nun sinken.

growing challenge in Franco-German defense industrial cooperation is that France often insists on being the senior partner if its financial contribution is that of a junior partner. This is, in a nutshell, why FCAS predictably collapsed. It kind of boils down to an issue of simple math. Germany's GDP (economy) is much larger than France's. Because it has a larger population and a higher per capita GDP. Germany's sovereign credit rating is superior to France's because it has much lower debt. Germany therefore has far more fiscal capacity. Germany's defense budget is already much larger than France's and, on current trajectories, it is set to be roughly 2x France's by 2030. And to further magnify the Franco-German gap, Germany can spend a larger % of its defense budget on conventional airpower and land power because it does not have a nuclear arsenal, does not have SSNs and does not have a military designed for blue water and expeditionary capability. When you add this all up, it means that Germany can spend much, much, much more (than France) on next gen fighters/bombers and army equipment like MBTs.