It looks like a reference to Elon Musk to me. Around the time of his take over of Twitter, Musk claimed that he was a “free speech absolutist”. Once statistics came in, it turned out that Musk’s twitter had a practically 100% compliance rate with censorship requests from authoritarian states, far higher than it was before the take over.

USA conservatives also do frequent calls for violence and claim freedom of speech when called out + then turn around and try to censor other peoples free speech when they don’t like the message. The last bit was especially noticable after Charlie Kirk’s murder. People who quoted Kirk to show what a vile person he was, were harassed and some even lost their jobs.

The slogan for conservative free speech absolutism might as well be “free speech for me, but my rules for thee”.

Public payphones in the streets and emergency phones alongside highways have also been removed (at least in my country). So yeah, our society expects us to have our own phones with us whenever we’re away from home.

The behaviour of ice and the dhs fits the definition of terrorism: “the unlawful use of violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims”. State terrorism is still terrorism.

Nazi Germany prior to the Reichstag fire was kinda like the usa now: thugs on the street harassing civilians of chosen outgroups without consequences, but the government was still ostensibly obeying laws and not yet mass disappearing people. I think usa republicans aren’t ready yet to have their Reichstag fire moment, but it just seems like a matter of time. Their expansion of ice seems pretty much unopposed & their take over of government agencies + army/navy appears to be progressing steadily as well.

That article reads like they’re trying to sell the bear’s skin before they’ve caught it. They kidnapped the Venezuelan leader, but the rest of the old regime is still in power. The USA doesn’t control anything on the ground, yet they’re talking as if it’s a done deal and that they can just walk in and take over.

I also wouldn’t want to be a us oil company employee that gets send over to Venezuela. Even if the USA somehow manages to take control of the oil fields, there’s likely to be a lot of sabotage and guerilla attacks.

25% of the population without a secondary education diploma looks pretty bad to me. To me it looks like a positive that that number has been increasing in the last 2 decades. For comparison: the EU target is 9% and the average across the EU countries is now 9.5%.

I wouldn’t try to link those SAT scores to graduation numbers. Graduation numbers will be for both vocational and academic schooling, while the SAT scores are only relevant for the academic route.

Well, that’s a bit of a relief.

I still believe that my regular toilet has a plume because I can feel the moisture of the droplets, so I’ll continue to keep the lid down, but still good to know that it isn’t that spectacular.

“These invisible particles go on to coat and spread onto surfaces like floors and counters; or objects like hand towels, bathmats or even toothbrushes.
…
Toilets are scientifically proven to continue to produce contaminated toilet plumes over multiple successive flushes as indicated in the above video.
…
Toilet aerosols are known to contain Norovirus, SARS Coronavirus, Salmonella and many other Diseases.” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toilet_plume

TLDR: always put the lid down before flushing.

I’d consider the health benefits a bigger benefit than the energy savings. Less chance of getting asthma and/or cancer is a pretty big boon.

Chlorine washing doesn’t kill off all pathogens, it only suppresses them so that they no longer show up in standard tests. In other words, chlorine washing conceals the presence of pathogens.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/sep/13/science-on-safety-of-chlorinated-chicken-misunderstood "But the academics point to research published last year which found washing food in bleach does not kill many of the pathogens that cause food poisoning. Instead, it sends them into a “viable but non-culturable state”, which means they are not picked up in standard tests, which take a sample of the food and try to culture any germs on it.

The presence of the pathogens is thus masked by the bleach, but they are still dangerous to human health.

Erik Millstone, professor of science policy at Sussex University and co-author of the briefing, told the Guardian lives would be at stake if food based on these lower standards were sold in the UK. “I am satisfied [by the evidence] that US food poisoning cases are significantly higher than in the UK. A minority of people suffer fatal complications,” he said. “There will certainly be fatalities, and they typically affect vulnerable people, such as infants, small children and the elderly.”"

It’s going to depend on your country and the stores you visit. If I wanted to, I could buy milk in a plastic bottle in most stores in Belgium. Tetra pak also exist in various sizes, 200 ml is the smallest I’ve seen and 2l the largest.

Iirc, they knew that it was stupid, their publisher forced it on them. They weren’t happy about it either.

That’s scorn + derision.

The argument was never about the lady, the lady her plight is a story telling device to make this abstract problem more relatable, to make the story more compelling and to get empathy + sympathy from the audience. The same way I tried to use my grandmother’s experience as a story telling device to make you more empathic with people who are differently able than you. These kinds of people exist in every country, you may even know some without knowing it because it’s not exactly written on our faces what our cognitive capabilities are. They deserve our sympathy and help if they want it, but to be scornful towards them is bad imo. I really don’t like victim blaming.

What I’m trying to say is: Keep an open mind, don’t let your prejudices determine your opinions about people, grow some empathy and try to be sympathetic with people’s situations. Scorn is never the right answer.

Yeah, there’s that scorn again that I was talking about. Your derision and scorn towards those that are less able than you demonstrate a lack of empathy and an absence of sympathy. Your “lots of data” is just your prejudices, you’re making sweeping generalizations, not based on knowledge or understanding, but largely based on your preconceived ignorant opinions.

That lady isn’t perfect, but as we can see, neither are you. Nor am I obviously. Cut people some slack, grow some empathy.

What this data also tells you is there is not a single country where 100% of people know how to cook, there will be people like that lady in every country. Some countries will have more as a percentage of the population, others less. Even Poland will have some. Those people deserve empathy, not scorn.

What this data also shows is that going out to eat is unlikely to be the reason for not being able to cook. People in western Europe and especially Spain/Portugal/Italy go out to eat very regularly, often daily, yet these countries rank higher on the cooking map than eastern Europe where people eat out less. That part of your reasoning, is again based on prejudice.

Prejudice, lack of empathy, scorn, I realize that these are negative terms and that you will find them offensive when applied to you, but … they are the correct terms. Your reasoning is based on prejudice. Your attitude towards that woman was scornful. You show a lack of empathy with people who are not like you.

That lady is 1 person, there’s no indication that she’s representative of the USA population as a whole. To see 1 person and then assume that everyone else in her country must be like her, is a very stupid generalization. Your opinion is based on prejudice, not reason. So far you’ve shown a tendency for victim blaming, a lack of empathy towards individuals that are left behind & prejudice towards all US Americans. Should I assume from that that all Poles lack empathy, and are full of prejudices about other people? Of course not, because you’re only 1 person and therefore too small a sample size to make a sweeping generalization like that.

I’m not from the USA, neither was my grandmother. Irregardless of that, even if we were from the USA, my grandmother would have left school decades before the USA education system fell behind that of other Western nations.

My grandmother also read books and a non stupid daily news paper, but she still couldn’t do basic arithmetics. It wasn’t about intellect, sometimes it’s opportunity and exposure, or maybe the unique wrinkles in our brain. There’s all sorts of people, not everyone is able to do the same things, so grow some empathy.

My grandmother was a great cook and also liked to cook, but she still needed my grandfather to do the very basic math to convert the recipe ratios in function of the amount of guests. She wasn’t stupid, she just left school at 13yo to help in the house and the only math that she did after that was counting.

All that to say: It’s not because it’s easy for you, that it’s easy for everyone.

I found an estimate of annual expenditures of 3.25 billion, without content payouts, but with engineering/legal/moderation costs. As 2024 revenue I found back 36 billion from advertising & 14.5 billion from subscriptions. Forbes had an article where Google claimed to have paid out $70bn in 2021-2023 to content creators, this number probably includes subscriptions. In those 3 years youtube had an ad revenue of 89.5 billion, but I have no number for subscriptions. These are all very opaque numbers. Based on these opaque numbers, I’d guesstimate youtube’s profit margin at 42%, which I find excessive.

$36bn ad revenue + $14.5bn subscriptions: https://www.businessofapps.com/data/youtube-statistics/

$3.25bn annual expenditures: https://www.clrn.org/how-much-does-youtube-cost-to-run/

$70bn payed out to creators from 2021 to 2023: https://www.forbes.com.au/news/innovation/youtube-70-billion-creator-payments/

Edit, how I got to my guesstimate of 42%:
36bn ad revenue in 2024. An average of 30bn ad revenue in the 3 years prior. Estimation for the subscription income in those 3 years: 30/36 x 14.5 x 3=36 billion. 73bn expenditures & 126bn income = 53bn profit. 53/126 = 42%.

This is another sign of how youtube’s story of “we’ve never made a profit” is bogus. More and more organisations are advertising on youtube, youtube is pushing the limits on the amount of advertising that viewers can stand & at the same time they’ve started paying creators less.

It looks like they’ve really started abusing their market position in the last few years: more income and less expenditure. And it’s probably no coincidence that there are no financial figures for youtube alone.

The late medieval Burgundians will have been the first to call it the low countries (les pays-bas). They acquired these territories (various duchies and counties in Belgium + Netherlands + bits around it) over time, not as one piece of land. All those different territories had different laws and traditions, different crown laws (HRE or kingdom of France), different local charters, … It wasn’t one country, so plural makes sense.