The problem is that many decisions in the EU require exactly 100% support of member states, which is a problem if you have a country with wildly different ideas than others (now Hungary, a few years ago Poland).
> The problem is that many decisions in the EU require exactly 100% support of member states
We have long known that unanimity holds us back internationally, and that the switch to majority vote is way overdue - but leading European Union member states to accept that is going to be a long slog. We'll get there and we have started on the path: trade policy for example is already qualified majority voting.
The Qualified Majority Vote has been being used in increasing scope of policy areas for many years.
QMV was part of stuff from the 1986 SEA, and got a major boost in the 1992 Maastricht Treaty, since it was recognised as practically being necessary to make any progress towards (and within) the Single Market.
Yes, not much progress since - apart from Russia, China and the USA increasing pressure... I suppose they support our federalist project and try to motivate us !
The requirement for unanimous voting has not existed for more than a decade. It was removed in response to the tactical shenanigans of Visegrad countries.
In practice most decisions are still technically unanimous, because it looks better politically and it doesn't cost anything more (since a majority can simply pass whatever they want, they are not forced to concede anything to the obstructionists; with the newer rules, it's smarter for any isolated bloc to immediately trade any publicly-stated opposition for any minor favour they can get).
This is the reason why Orban, despite all his bombast, has no influence whatsoever on the actual decisions; but also why German resistance against overdue fiscal reforms has basically melted.
>you have a country with wildly different ideas than others (now Hungary, a few years ago Poland)
Why single out Hungary and Poland specifically? Is it worse than when Austria, Netherlands, France, etc. have a different opinion to the rest of the union and torpedo progress just to pander to the right wingers in their country?
Leaving aside personal preferences regarding the previous Polish and current Hungarian governments, the electoral processes are generally viewed as fair regarding the absence of major direct fraud related to vote counting. However, the fact is, that the state resources were used by the ruling parties to promote themselves.
The removal of the former Polish government was largely driven by public disapproval of state fund mismanagement. In Hungary, a key element of the current government's platform appears to be the promotion of national identity, including ties with diaspora communities formed after WWI (The Treaty of Trianon), potentially with implications for future "geopolitical alignments" (the likelihood of which is debatable).
These results, while influenced by the d'Hondt system, reflect the sentiment of the voting population, which is a democratic process, in principle. The ruling methods are not 100% democratic though (rule of majority with respect for minority rights)
However, the opinions of my "more Western friends" on those topics "diverge from on-the-ground realities".
Still, Hungary and Poland are consistently brought in as the bad apples for opposing mass migration quotas, and recently Hungary for the milder tone towards Russia, but it's ignored that everyday plenty of countries oppose many other resolutions.
That's hilarious (not), given that so much discourse is about just how much democracy should be shaved off to get the desirable Democratic(tm) results (Supermajority for Brexit! Ban AFD! et al.).
How are they authoritans? Do you just look at the optics, or do you look at the damage done to the EU in monetary terms? Because those are two different things?
That being said flagging e-mails coming from known IP ranges of those e-mail providers seems like a pretty good idea for ATSes to detect non-human spam.
All platforms like that have failed because fundamentally companies don't trust others with hiring, unless you can very quickly get rid of someone (body leasing).
With postgres I think it's also the problem of weak observability mechanisms. By default all you get is cumulative statistics. Then with extensions you get pg_stat_statements and a few more things, but you really shouldn't need to use something like pgAnalyze to get basics, like history of autovacuums, cumulative wait events and other stuff like that.
Success of the US is largely a product of globalization and geography. The US would be nowhere close to where it is now without largely unrestricted capitalism and a global consumer base. It has always been like that, from being a colony, through making money on products of slavery, being industrial base for lots of the world in 20th century and now being the digital world capital.
If your company has 1k devs you'll have to hire several people every single week. At the same time if you want any level of consistency, you can't let teams who have not hired for 2 years come up with their own process, so that's why pipelines are a thing.
I assume most HN job posts are from small startups. Even if they are established companies with a sizable head count, it seems weird seeing the same exact job post month after month for a year or two straight.
> you can't let teams who have not hired for 2 years come up with their own process
Perhaps? We're a 9 person backend department inside a 250 person ISP. Not the typical type of team we talk about here on HN. I doubt small startups need a pipeline either, they just hire on demand.
As a German, I think Estonia has to be before us with a huge lead. Their digital infrastructure is the wet dream of our bureaucratic apparatus.
I don't think the IMD is aware of just how crappy digital processes are in Germany.
A legal process that is digital literally means that you fill out an online form so they can send you the printed out paper form via snail mail and you have to redundantly fill that out again, saving overall exactly 0 seconds with the initial digital website. Not kidding.
I'm surprised by the number of medical practices in Australia that still use fax machines for sending reports and referrals.
Ordinary email is widely not viewed as sufficiently secure to use for sending confidential patient health data (although I've seen a minority use it for that purpose anyway). There is a secure digital messaging system supposed to replace fax machines, HealthLink, which some practices use. But it is owned by a private company and costs extra $$$, and a lot of practices decide they don't want to pay it. So fax machines survive. Now running over VoIP (actually FoIP) – Australia has turned off its POTS telephone system.
They meet these metrics while they are under formal process just before termination. I used to work with a couple people clearly working multiple jobs who switched focus when they were PIPed.
If they are refocused on their job and now meeting metrics why terminate them? People can become unfocused for a variety of reasons beyond working other jobs. Life happens. If they don't remain focused and again don't meet metrics they have already been given an opportunity and should then be terminated.
