Is that true when you factor in leverage?
3,316 karma · joined December 21, 2017
The USSR is obviously a different situation.
In the USA, Supreme Court judges are nominated by a president (who was elected by through a process of representative democracy), but confirmed (closest to appointed) by a democratically elected Senate.
>making rulings that are at odds with many polls out there
The majority of SCOTUS rulings are bipartisan and non-controversial, but let's say we ignore those and focus narrowly on the ones with some controversy around them. The New York Times[0], a left-leaning and anti-Trump institution has identified 12 cases over this past year as "major decisions" and has compiled a page where you can see how the court ruled, and how the public polled. If you read it, you'll see that the Supreme Court diverged from public opinion on only 2 of those 12 cases.
[0] https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2023/06/07/us/major-supr...
Furthermore, the underlying premise that the Supreme Court should be bound by public opinion is democratic only in the most literal sense and would quickly lead to tyranny of the majority.
So I guess I stand with OP - the fact that you, a "non-American" are convinced that what you wrote are "facts" is soft evidence of there being a deliberate effort to undermine faith in the legal system.
The US had millions of hungry people. At the peak of the Great Depression, deaths from starvation peaked at a (still terrible) ~110k. Under Soviet rule, an order of magnitude more, actually millions, perished unnecessarily from hunger just in Ukraine.
https://courses.lumenlearning.com/suny-ushistory2os2xmaster/...
> A recent Canadian study (ECCC 2018) stated, “An average Canadian angler can lose 11 to 15 jigs and sinkers per year while fishing due to snags and other reasons. This adds up to about 460 metric tons of lead jigs and sinkers lost every year into Canada’s lakes and waterways. This represents the most significant source of lead releases into Canadian waters.”
Supposedly OCD is your brain’s cause-effect loop being too potent. As in, you have a random fear I.e. “stove is on, fire will burn down house,” you go to check the stove, and the act of checking (regardless of its being on) creates the feeling that you saved your house from burning down, so now you feel compelled to check every time. Paraphrased from the Huberman podcast.
https://www.watchuseek.com/threads/the-actual-very-first-wat...
In programmer terms, racial affirmative action is a very lossy hash of reality, which leaves a lot of room for injustice both in terms of who it helps and who it doesn’t.
That said, I think economic resiliency and early mover (did)advantage are the other parts of that story. Not many nations can handle the trade impediment of their own units of measure, but the UK and US were/are both large enough. And I think because we industrialized early, switching with the rest of the world was more expensive, so we stuck with it.
Plus, there are pedestrians, cyclists, motorcyclists, etc., who can crash.
They could apply to trans women, so it’s a worthwhile thing to clarify.
The term “man” is understood by a very broad swath of society, and overwhelmingly the educated class who writes for and reads these journals, to refer to the gender construct, not the biological fact. Clarity is always better.
Except the one where China hasn't destroyed much of its industry, or alienated much of the world, and thus can trade for food.
Your examples are illustrative as well, inspite of your intention - the next three famines you list (1942, 1936, 1929) all occurred during a civil war in which Mao was a major player on one side, and at a time when part of the country was at war with/under occupation of imperial Japan.
Prigozhin agreed to a fake stand-down; his troops have been in action for 18 hours, this allows them to regroup and rest for a night and commence again in the morning, with some drummed up excuse.
Prigozhin didn't get the support he expected from the military, so he was was motivated to settle, but had enough support to threaten Moscow, so Putin was motivated to settle. Outcomes - a hardliner in charge of the Russian military, Putin quietly retires in a year or two, hands over reigns without the violence.
Prigozhin was threatened with a tactical nuke, decided it wasn't worth it.
One of Prigozhin's desired outcomes - a change of the guard in Russia's MoD was inevitable given the incompetence shown in the defense of this mutiny. Even if things got truly violent and Wagner was destroyed by force, Shoigu and Gerasimov were out.
Prigozhin's communications are a mix of brutal honesty and subtle manipulation. His allies are a mix of the competent and the fanatical. Overall, the whole thing is bizarre. I'm not convinced it's over.
Warning though - it broke a game my friends play “how would you survive X apocalypse?” My answer for many switched to “wouldn’t want to.”
One downside is that it competes for the same “feel-good” feeling which much more effective charities compete for. Someone engages with Mr.Beast, feels like they did good. Later they walk by a food shelter in need of volunteers and thinks “I already did my part.” As we have parasocial relationships, we have paraphilanthropy. I suspect it ultimately makes people less compassionate and caring. This is hinted at here:
> For Miller, what makes Donaldson remarkable is that he essentially asks his audience to see themselves as a commodity, and to therefore see their views and likes and shares as a force for good: “MrBeast is actually telling people that they’re entering a marketplace, by saying, ‘If you watch this, this is worth so much money, I can raise this much money and I can spend it on good causes.’” As Donaldson says in one video for his philanthropic sub-channel: “Beast Philanthropy is literally funded by your eyeballs. Not even joking.”
Truth is, watching hours of YouTube isn't doing good. At best it’s entertainment, at worst it’s hours of human potential wasted.
The other downside is that it normalizes the extrinsic reward to doing good. Kindness done for the “thank you” breeds resentment. The vulnerable can be thankful, but they can also be angry, frustrated, confused, hurt, mentally ill, etc. Sustainable kindness is done for oneself.
Ha, that’s exactly how I describe mushrooming. You might find it similarly satisfying, though if you plan on foraging for food I recommend taking a course on identification (most communities have a mycology club) and sticking to the basics.