Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit | g6taa's commentslogin

This is explicitly about commemorative coins, not regular ones.


> This is explicitly about commemorative coins, not regular ones.

The formulation is not so easy to read (very common for German laws), but it includes also the regulations for normal coins:

"Erfolgt eine einzelne Zahlung sowohl in Euro-Münzen als auch in deutschen Euro-Gedenkmünzen, ist niemand verpflichtet, mehr als 50 Münzen anzunehmen; dies gilt auch dann, wenn der Gesamtbetrag 200 Euro unterschreitet."

"If a single payment is made using both euro coins and German commemorative euro coins, no one is obliged to accept more than 50 coins; this also applies if the total amount is less than 200 euros."

So, there exist two cases in which the vendor is not obliged to take more than 50 coins:

- The payment consists of both normal Euro coins and German commemorative euro coins

- The payment is less than EUR 200.

--

Independently, there does exist another source of law by which the vendor is not obliged to take more than 50 coins: Artikel 11 der EG-Verordnung Nr. 974/98 des Rates über die Einführung des Euro, EU-Amtsblatt L139 vom 11. Mai 1998:

> https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/DE/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELE... (German)

> https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELE... (English)

"As from 1 January 2002, the participating Member States shall issue coins denominated in euro or in cent and complying with the denominations and technical specifications which the Council may lay down in accordance with the second sentence of Article 105a(2) of the Treaty. Without prejudice to Article 15, these coins shall be the only coins which have the status of legal tender in all these Member States. Except for the issuing authority and for those persons specifically designated by the national legislation of the issuing Member State, no party shall be obliged to accept more than 50 coins in any single payment."

Relevant part of this article:

"Except for the issuing authority and for those persons specifically designated by the national legislation of the issuing Member State, no party shall be obliged to accept more than 50 coins in any single payment."


Feels you the "single payment" clause still gives you plenty opportunity to be a massive pain about debts.


Do you have a hint on how to find that video?


It’s “The Physics of Dissonance”: https://youtube.com/watch?v=tCsl6ZcY9ag


Wow, thanks for sharing.

The video shows this tool, which has a 3D harmony/dissonance explorer, which can be used as a makeshift musical insturment.

https://aatishb.com/dissonance/


Thank you!


Slavoj Žižek ?


Edit: Slavoj Žižek. As always, phenomenal and humble take.

"I’m already eating from the trashcan all the time, the name of this trashcan is... ideology"

Slavoj Žižek on "They Live" (The Pervert's Guide to Ideology) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TVwKjGbz60k


> 2. I don't have Google Photos and the pixel camera app tries to launch google photos when you want to review the picture you just took. But there is a FOSS app called GPhotosShim that uses the same namespace as google photos and thus fools the camera into launching that app instead. Once launched, it just launches whatever media management app you actually have configured, so it's seamless.

There's also GCam https://github.com/lukaspieper/Gcam-Services-Provider

I don't know if it matters, but GPhotosShim doesn't seem to get updated.


You can select the different cameras and avoid digital zoom.


Open Camera does that though. It's right next to the main "take photo" button. At least on the version I have.


I hadn't seen that button, but at least for me it's not enough: I want to be able to select the camera directly. And in Open Camera I can only select two out of the three cameras.


> >Do you support Free Speech of the person screaming obscenities at your young child? False claims about you? Whipping up entire communities to attack you physically? > > Yes. If it's just words and not a direct threat it's fine. > > Direct threats are a fine exception because they promise crossing over from words into physical action, at that point the NAP is violated if you want to look at it that way. No need to wait and see if they're actually going to follow through. > > Aside from that I really don't see any need for further exceptions.

I'd argue that someone who has effectively control over some kind of mob riling them up is quite a bit more threatening than a "direct threat" if they know that mob contains people that will (or even just are very likely to) commit violence as a result of it: instead of making one direct threat, they generate multiple (indirect and possibility silent) ones.


Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: