deleted by creator

How true is the dead internet theory, in your view?

I’ll ask anyway. Why do companies like bots?

Salads and sandwiches should be served room temperature, never right out of the fridge cold

Grit your teeth

Stiff upper lip

Sisu

Many ways to articulate this

The main quesiton is what you want long term. If you want to eventually move in with a romantic partner, I would advice you to get used to independent living beforehand. Having to cook for and clean up after a partner who never learned to live without mommy and daddy is a huge turn-off for most people and can sour a relationship very fast. I would ask you these questions:

Do you cook dinner for the household at least every week?

Do you clean the kitchen yourself after cooking?

Do you do the grocery shopping for the household?

Do you often tidy up the pots and pans after meals (not just your own plates and cutlery)?

Are you the one who takes a walk around the house putting away stray plates, glasses & clothes and tidying up? Do you do this at least once a day?

When something breaks, are you often the one who repairs or replaces it?

Is it typically tidier & neater when your parents are away than when they are home?

If you want to live with a romantic partner in the future, and the answer to any of these is no, I suggest you have a long hard think about whether you’re preparing for the life you want, or just staying where it’s comfortable.

https://www.nrk.no/norge/dramatisk-okning-i-andelen-barnlose-i-norge-1.13759502#:~:text=Andelen barnløse er på en,ikke ønsker å få barn.

No. Out of 50 that’s 40 who had kids, 9 who didn’t and regret it, and just 1 who didn’t and are content.

It’s a need in that it’s programmed into your biology, and most people can’t thrive without it. Surveys of middle-aged people find about 1 in 5 are child-free. Out of those, about 1 in 10 are so by choice. That leaves 49 in 50 that either have or wished, but couldn’t have, children.

I would go the Social Services office and explain my situation. Provided I could prove my identity I would walk out with a couple hundred dollars cash, an address for decent temporary accommodations, and an appointment with a case worker to find a more permanent solution for me.

That’s the security of the Nordic welfare state.

It’s the same impulse that made medieval people believe they could defend themselves from fairies and demons by saying the right things the right way. Some part of the insanity demands that a person who sees through the illusion can somehow win against the evil conspirators

EU carbon permits shot up from €20 and have been hovering under €100 a tonne post-COVID. ~€200 is when existing direct air capture starts to become competitive. If it can be scaled at that price, we might be closer than we think.

Also bureaucracy and public ownership

and hyper-socialist policies

The Nordic Model isn’t really all that Socialist. It’s based on strong welfare and labor rights, but also very much on the free market. The most Socialist country in Europe is probably France

The effect of the 2 party system on how people understand politics and society is incredibly interesting

Maybe? We’re currently trying to implement a different economic transition, from pollution to green. I don’t think popular resistance to those changes imply that we should try for a happy medium instead. Similarly, the difficulty in achieving Socialism democratically doesn’t necessarily imply anything about how desirable the end state would be.

The big issue with “trying” communism is that it historically has only really occurred through violent revolution. The political instability in these situations gives a perfect opportunity for the seizing of power by exactly those kinds of people.

Gradualist Socialism was the political project for Social Democrats in post-war Europe. They had 30-odd years to achieve it in several countries. The issue becomes that once they started notching up victories, radicalism decreased, and that when they’re not starving and oppressed people categorically will not vote to let someone collectivize their farms and expropriate their homes. It seems clear to me that in real-world conditions, a Socialist state can only come about through revolution, because the path in a democracy is far too long and leaves far too many angles of attack from a liberal opposition.

My wife does this all the time. I make her pause and then we chat a bit. Works well

The TB one for instance found that TB gets worse whenever there is an IMF loan but not in the same circumstances when there is a loan from somewhere else.

Yes, because the countries taking those loans aren’t distressed.

There is a reason China’s loans are so popular.

They are popular because they come with very little oversight. Countries with higher transparency do not find them very appealing, as Italy’s recent withdrawal from the program attests.

You don’t seem to realize that IMF loan conditions have very specific governance requirements which directly impact governmental decisions around health spending.

They come with very specific governance requirements which impact governmental decisions about a whole host of things, because those governments have proven incapable of sound fiscal management.

Again, the IMF is in no way perfect and I’m sure there is a myriad ways the conditions of their loans can be tailored to minimize negative outcomes. But that does not mean they cause these problems any more than every cancer death being a failure of medicine means doctors cause cancer.

I’ve looked at all of the sources you provide, and they all point out the fact that countries experience bad outsomes after an IMF intervention, which nobody’s disputed. My argument is that countries in similar dire straights will experience even worse outcomes if there is no such intervention. As an example, I could name Venezuela, which experienced an extreme increase in child mortality, your favored metric, after leaving the IMF. The root cause is economic distress, not the IMF intervention.

Minimizing the negative effects of government failure is absolutely worth examining. Identifying the mistakes made by the IMF in past interventions is a noble goal. But we should not blame international organizations when poor governance causes countries to fail.