Reality is rarely an ideal monopoly or perfect competition. In practice, there's always a bit of monopoly power.

Would be good to show results in details, not just summary. A list of high and low scoring submissions, for example, to vibe check the method.

Also, would be good to show trends over time rather than just a one-time pie chart showing breakdown into arbitrary categories.

It uses "not merely" 7 times! I wonder if an LLM would repeat a phrase that often. It could be the author starting to write like LLMs, instead.

That's not what Jevons paradox means though. He's just name dropping some concept.

Jevons paradox would be if despite software becoming cheaper to produce the total spend on producing software would increase because the increase in production outruns the savings

Jevons paradox applies when demand is very elastic, i.e. small changes in price cause large changes in quantity demanded. It's a property of the market.

It's a figure of speech called metonymy. I agree Brussels is not very precise, a better word would be Berlaymont to refer to the EU commission specifically as there are a lot of institutions that could be meant by Brussels (Belgian federal govt, Brussels regional govt, EU commission, EU parliament, EU council, ...)

more precisely, it is synecdoche!

It does provide value in that I know I shouldn't read it. It's clearly LLM written after a few glances.

Why didn't you put the methodology in the post? Also, which devices were used to record? How do you know people went to sauna?

Use desktop view

Rules that are not enforced are bad as they create space for arbitrariness and corruption. It was a mistake by gov't, opposition & media that this wasn't spotted at the time the law was revised.

The most surprising thing is that the ministry didn't figure this out itself. You'd expect the people drafting laws to consider such things. Thus, it's an indicator of ministerial sloppiness. Not a nothingburger.

It may not be sloppiness. Consider the official statement as shared in this comment: https://news.ycombinator.com/reply?id=47789061. The ministry of defense will issue an 'exception' that generally applies. Presumably, revoking this exception is straightforward and much easier than passing a new law.

If it wasn't sloppiness they would have issued the directive on January 1.

> The most surprising thing is that the ministry didn't figure this out itself. Thus, it's an indicator of ministerial sloppiness.

This I agree with. Might have to do with law changes requiring a two-thirds-majority in parliament though. They could have communicated earlier and better though.

The way laws work there is that each law either enumerates the penalties itself or the law of penalties enumerates them. So for each law you only have to check two places to know what the penalties are.

In this case, there are none.