You know, I haven’t lived a perfect life. But unless things go in a real wild direction, at least I can say I’m extremely unlikely to ever do something so bad I get sentenced to death in absentia…

You linked a source repeating your earlier claim about the raw number of people lifted out of poverty. Again, I ask, what about per-capita income?

This is a ridiculous comparison. Taiwan received substantial foreign aid from the US because of it’s strategic value against the mainland, while the PRC was subject to a massive economic embargo.

China received extensive aid from the USSR.

That… what? I don’t follow what you’re saying here at all.

Do you understand what “per capita” means? It would be far more impressive for a country of one million people to lift 950,000 people out of poverty than for a nation of 1 billion people to lift 800 million people out of poverty.

It’s much easier for a small country to modernize in a short period of time, especially with outside help. It’s very difficult to reach all the people in all the rural areas of China, it means more infrastructure has to be built, more people have to be educated, etc.

Why? I see no reason for this. Larger countries have more resources. Everything you need to lift people out of poverty scales with population. If anything, it’s actually EASIER for large countries to lift themselves out of poverty. A tiny micro-nation with a population of 10,000 isn’t going to be building an aircraft factory. There’s a lot of minimum-size requirements on certain national infrastructure. If anything, the bigger, the easier it is to modernize. Yes, the larger population creates greater needs, but you also have more people to address those needs.

And China was not unique in having disconnected rural populations. Small countries and big countries both have isolated rural areas.

I don’t agree that per-capita is the relevent statistic for the above reasons.

It’s the only meaningful way to compare countries. Otherwise you just end up making brain-dead conclusions like, “the big country has the big number. Therefore it’s better.”

And yet, China has delivered substantially lower average incomes than its peers. It’s not even close. The people of Taiwan, despite sharing a common cultural and ethnic history as mainland China, enjoy a substantially higher standard of living than their mainland peers.

Yes, they’ve raised hundreds of millions out of poverty, but that’s been the case throughout East Asia. The whole region saw its standard of living dramatically rise as it industrialized. And the capitalist countries have enjoyed far greater economic success than the communist ones.

The absolute number of people is a red herring. Obviously big countries have more people.

I’m hoping you’re not one of those .ml folks that acts like a Republican and calls every source they don’t like “Fake News.” But in case you are, can you provide your own sources? I would be curious on your thoughts of the per-capita incomes of China vs the capitalist East Asian countries. Can you show that China has performed better than them on a per-capita basis?

Almost certainly soft. Maybe some wealthy eccentric would frame their house in expensive hard wood as a flex, but wood framed construction is almost exclusively softwood. It grows much more quickly, is easier to work with, and is plenty strong. I wouldn’t frame a house in anything but good old-reliable Douglas Fir.

I solved my issues with urinals by simply removing my ability to use a urinal.

The problem with Kings is they don’t live up to the marketing. Royals are a group of people that claim they have some genetic superiority to the rest of the species. They deserve the right to rule because they simply have superior blood. They’re smarter, stronger, faster, than everyone else. And in an era before modern nutrition, this was a lot easier case to make. The core thesis of monarchy is “ability runs in families. Let’s find the family with the genes best for governing, and just let them run the place.”

If that idea actually worked, monarchy would be a great system. But governing is not a skill that is passed on genetically. Royals are just ordinary human beings in fancy hats. In fact, they tend to be far stupider than the average person, as they’re born into wealth and privilege.

But King Kong? His elevated position over humanity truly is an inborn genetic trait. He is not a common human, and that’s undeniable. President Kong would imply we elected him as first among equals. King Kong is more appropriate in this situation.

I want to believe there is not in fact porn on the internet of Light Yagami and Ryuk. But knowing Rule 34, there almost certainly is. I’ll avoid searching for it and keep my blissful ignorance.

This is pretty silly. Superhero movies constantly feature superheroes and supervillains causing mass property damage. Superman will be thrown through buildings. Cars will be used as throwing weapons, etc.

It’s a deliberate cinematic choice. Superheroes just flying in the sky punching each other doesn’t convey the power involved in these characters. No, if you want to portray superheroes in a way that actually feels real to people, you need to show them interacting with our ordinary world. You show them treating things we experience as solid, indestructible, and immobile as mere tissue paper.

This is just “show, don’t tell.” Sure, you could have some character verbally explain that “Superman has the strength of a million men!”, but if all you saw was Superman fighting in a cloud or an empty field, that wouldn’t really mean much. You can’t feel it. Watch Superman casually pick up a skyscraper, and suddenly your mind can actually grasp the scale of his power.

Go to your bank wearing an N95 mask. Wear a hoodie and put a banana in the front pocket. Keep your hands in your front pocket, grasping the banana. Walk up to the teller and ask them to put $100 in a bag.

In tiny print at the bottom, include your bank account number. After they have a second to look at it, hand them your photo ID.

10 mph over is the normal driving speed on US highways.

If you’re going to be a slow poke, I suggest you start practicing reverse passing. Are you on a road with one lane in each direction, and someone comes up behind you wanting to pass? Instead of being an asshole and trying to stop them, be a positive influence and help them. It’s far easier to reverse pass than to pass, as you’re slowing down rather than speeding up.

Reverse passing is just like it sounds - passing in reverse. You enter the left lane, slow down rapidly, and then move back over. You force the driver behind you to pass you whether they want to or not.

There, now you’re the driver in the following position. You just eliminated a traffic hazard, and you can go at your own pace without inconveniencing anyone. Take your slow Sunday drives if you want, but don’t be an asshole. It’s extremely anti-social behavior.

Because cops are ultimately cowards. They kill people in cold blood, but they only have that bravado because they know most people are never going to throw their lives away trying to stop them. Cops are not skilled marksman or particularly brave. They just operate in an environment where they can use force on people, but no one will ever use force back on them. This is why they act like such assholes. They’ll escalate situations. They’ll introduce violence to scenarios where none was previously present. They’ll demonstrate extreme aggression…but only so long as they believe they’re perfectly safe. How often do you hear about a cop beating someone, and a random uninvolved passerby just pulling out a gun and blowing their head off while they’re in the act of brutalizing someone? It never happens. People aren’t willing to throw their lives away to rescue others from police violence. So cops can victimize people with impunity.

Except, once in awhile they run into someone that IS willing to throw their life away. A school shooter is clearly willing to shoot at cops. If you’re willing to kill kids, you’ll certainly be willing to kill a cop. When they actually face the chance of someone fighting back, they run like the cowards they are.

Brave people don’t become police officers. People looking to have power over others become police officers.

There is one very cost-effective way to combat cheap drones. Laser systems being developed and deployed now are the logical counter to cheap drone swarms. Those systems have per-shot costs far below even the cheapest of mass produced drones.

And not just the real famous ones! I want to see a white guy in the US just completely obsessed and fanboying over the Gambia.

deleted by creator

Please. Knows HER shit! :D

https://www.inhousepharmacy.vu/
https://www.alldaychemist.com/

Some old school sites that allow ordering of certain rx medicines without an rx. You can’t order scheduled substances like opioids, but they have a lot of common prescription medications.

No. We’ll just leave that to the zoology interns.

Surely it would be simpler to blindfold the gorilla. 🤣

They say they don’t want to replace workers. They say they just want to use AI to make existing workers more efficient. Very well; let’s hold them to their word.