Sure but if the results have practical implications then the validity will be self evident. If they do not, not much of consequence has been lost.
Interesting that math gets so much attention, when actual advances to material science, biology and chemistry have much higher ramifications and economic benefits. I assume progress there is kept under wraps until they can capture the economic benefits. If they can do that, then the insane valuations may actually be valid.
> I assume progress there is kept under wraps until they can capture the economic benefits. If they can do that, then the insane valuations may actually be valid.
Or progress is not as straight forward in those fields as in math.
that's my experience (at least for experimental quantum materials research). LLMs help a lot with paper discovery, grant/paper writing etc., but on the experimental side, they barely move the needle for now. Some analyses are done faster now than they were before because you don't need to fiddle around with the code, but that's it.
In a field where a single person can maybe produce and characterize a single sample per day, AI will only really start speeding up progress once you combine it with robotics.
Missing the forest for the trees. Spain had extreme wealth from colonies, but wasted it on nothing but debauchery.
Britain had wealth from colonies and maintained an empire with very few people and no computers. The British elites were on an entirely different level to the spanish ones, which is the point of the article. Great Britain had an extremely capable and educated bureaucracy that maintained an empire and was first to industrialize as a result.
> Spain had extreme wealth from colonies, but wasted it on nothing but debauchery.
I disagree with this, I don't consider "expensive wars with other European powers" to be debauchery.
Losing the entire Spanish Armada [1] was a very expensive mistake, but the reason the Armada was lost was because the Spanish crown wanted to invade England over religious differences (England being Protestant, Spain being Catholic), not because they decided to throw a huge boat party and got so drunk they accidentally sank everything.
Much like the wars of the French crown which would end up so hurting the country financially that they caused a revolution, the wars of the Spanish crown also had a rather unpleasant effect on national finances.
> bureaucracy that maintained an empire and was first to industrialize as a result.
It's not obvious that's what happened. When the industrial revolution started the British empire was still pretty much ad-hoc and in large part privatized and not administered by the government directly (of course the East India company was not exactly an independent corporation). The British Empire in the way we understand it now wasn't really a thing until the mid 1800s or so.
1. Empires do not generate wealth, they cost wealth. Or rather they do not generate an economic surplus (the wealth available to the central government via taxation that can be used for whatever the government/elites want). A nation of 10 million will have more economic wealth than a nation of one million, but most of that is needed to keep the 10 million alive and to maintain the infrastructure and pay the local police to keep everyone in line, etc -- only a small fraction of total wealth can be effectively taxed by the empire and spent on arbitrary stuff like increasing the size of the Navy. That is what I mean by surplus.
A nation starts out with an economic surplus (here, I mean a real surplus, not a surplus of silver, but of real wealth) and they use that surplus to get a big army and go conquering. And each time they conquer, a part of that surplus is expended until they reach their maximum extent.
If this was not the case, we'd have a one world government, where the bigger you get, the bigger your surplus and no one can compete with you. But that is not what we see, what we see is that empires expand until they can't afford to keep expanding. Why did England give up its colonies? Because after WW2 it had too many war debts and couldn't keep subsidizing those colonies -- they were too expensive to keep. Same reason for why Rome stopped expanding and had so many financial problems. The check on empire is always bankruptcy. You can look at the trillions the US spends on foreign wars, which far exceeds the economic benefit we get of waging those wars. You can argue, for example, that we got some oil from Iraq, but we still have to pay for that oil, so whatever discount we got on oil comes nowhere near the cost of invading and administering Iraq. That is how all empires work -- France was always better off, financially, just paying market rate for whatever minerals it could get in Africa than the massive resources it spent on trying to control and build infrastructure in Africa. Same thing for England. It doesn't even come close, when you add up the cost of the British Navy and colonial administration to whatever discount it got on raw materials over paying the market rate. Same thing for Rome, etc.
2. The situation with Spain was about financial wealth, not real wealth. They discovered huge silver mines in their colonies and were awash with silver. That dumping of money 1) created massive inflation, and 2) caused Spain to run a huge trade deficit, destroying domestic industry, as the Spanish currency was basically overvalued. It was this economic destruction that leads people to think Spain became lazy and stopped producing. They didn't become lazy, but with so much free money causing such high prices, Spanish industry could no longer be competitive with industry elsewhere. This is called "Dutch disease" as the same thing hit Holland and you also see it in the US with our overvalued currency. So you do not benefit, in terms of real wealth, when you dump a bunch of money on a country. You need just the right amount of money -- too much and you get inflation, too little and you get deflation. There is an optimal amount of money for an economy, and Spain exceeded it.
3. Many have studied the reason why England led the industrial revolution, and it is not a majority view that it had anything to do with the colonies. Most point to things like the availability of coal, development of financial markets, and of course the fact that a lot of the steam engine stuff was invented first in England.
1. War costs wealth not empires by themselves. GB created an empire, because their technological and intelligence advantage was so high, the amount of war needed to get it was small. By intelligence I mean the conquering of India by exploiting its cast system. The colonies were simply civilizations that were out of date and had a huge informational disadvantage. WW2 changed that as it was so expensive it bankrupted everyone but the US.
> Same reason for why Rome stopped expanding and had so many financial problems. The check on empire is always bankruptcy.
The down fall of every empire is hubris and corruption. It is what is bankrupting the US and what bankrupted the Romans. They stopped having kids, spent their time partying and tried to make up for it by importing and relying on barbarians.
2. Yes. But the state did not recognize the trap or simply did not care because it was not interested. I'm not exactly a historian, but Spain was somewhat known for having an inbred idiotic monarchy.
3. All of which are a result of an educated, effective elite and bureaucracy.
Competent leadership is the difference between El Salvador now and 10 years ago. It is the difference between Singapore and Malaysia. Both countries are a result of pure force of will of competent leadership.
1. You need to pay for civil administration
2. You need to put down rebellions, which means staffing it with troops/police
3. You have to build and maintain infrastructure
4. You have to protect the empire from foreign invasion -- e.g. Julius Caeser needing to fight the Helvetii
5. You have to pay bribes to local notables to be loyal to you
Let's take a look at Rome in Palestine - it had to constantly put down rebellions, build an enormous temple and civil infrastructure, man the area with troops that need to be paid, fight off invaders. Pay off all sorts of locals.
And yes, a big part of that is military expenditure, but the role of the British Navy was not primarily to enlarge the empire but to preserve the empire, protect shipping lanes, etc.
> The down fall of every empire is hubris and corruption.
This is a moralizing view of history, and things just don't work like this.
While civil administration, police, courts, infrastructure and army all do cost, wealth, I would argue that they also help to create it.
It's a lot easier to create a software company when you live in a world where the power station cannot be held for ransom by bandits, where everyone is educated and speaks a similar language, when there are laws governing the creation of businesses, a financial system, backed by the government, which enables trade to happen easily, etc.
For example, the Roman Empire, in unifying the Mediterranean, led to a large increase in trade - you can estimate shipping volume across the Mediterranean by counting shipwrecks, and the period of ~0-150AD when the Empire was at its peak had a much higher volume of shipping than preceding and following periods.
I think of administration, police, legal and financial system as something like a capital investment - a bit like buying a widget producing machine - you spend the money/effort/resources on it because you expect to get more out of it than you put it.
Corruption is objectively negative. The east indian company not generating wealth is objectively wrong. The roman and british empires were not the same and the roman one required way more war to maintain.
> but Spain was somewhat known for having an inbred idiotic monarchy.
Spain wasn't even a really country until the 1700s it was a collection of states ruled by the same monarch but each of them had their government apparatus and elites whose interests didn't exactly align with that of Castile or the king all of the time. That's just in Iberia, the Low Countries which in the early 1500s were effectively the economic and political centre of what we think of as the "Spanish Empire" caused even more issues and ended up being a huge money sink.
The Europeans have some amount of leverage over the Americans, much smaller than the Americans have over them. But they use 100% of it to keep the Americans involved in the Ukraine War rather than to defend their own institutions / economies.
The US has chosen not to project all the power they can. That is send soldiers - likely some to die. However the US has the ability to send them if they want, and could supply them if they did - nobody else has anywhere near that ability ready today.
Half a million soldiers and 57,000 dead in Vietnam did not win the war, when you have an adversary who is willing to fight and has a supply line. The same applied to Afghanistan and Korea.
Russia is currently learning that lesson again. After Afghanistan, in the Ukraine, for the US to have any chance of winning in Iran the US needs at least half a million people on the ground. With a trillion dollar bankroll?
The United States is reaching the end. When it comes to the amount of money needed, let alone the human cost, and to top it off, while we’re slogging around in the sand in Iran at every level, we will be getting weaker in relationship to China and the world.
>Hormuz is mostly open last I checked. Iran is shouting, but ships are getting through again.
Hormuz isn't open. Any traffic going through is a small fraction compared to before the war. The US can't even operate close to the Iranian shore for fear of anti ship missiles.
> the US has made the choice to not escalate farther,
They can't escalate further or they would. They can't even hold their bases or protect the countries they are supposed to. What power, short of a nuke, are they holding back on?
> US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent stated on September 27 that between 15 and 22 million barrels of oil currently pass through the strait daily, compared to the 20 million barrels of oil that passed through the strait daily before the war.
> The Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC) Navy claimed that Iran has targeted 19 vessels that have attempted to transit the strait since September 25, though Iranian media provided no evidence to substantiate these claims.
Bessent is a liar and an idiot. May as well quote Trump tweets. Iran still being able to attack ships at will in the straight should further dispel any illusion it is open.
There are independent trackers which all show transit levels around 1-5% of what it was prewar. Even with some shadow fleet tankers going, it still isn't getting anywhere close to those levels.
What does that have to do with anything? The need for a draft is one of several reasons why it is unlikely the US will escalate more. However that is a card the US could play quickly, and combined with the existing military would be enough. (Vietnam could have been won as well, but the US made political choices to not do what it takes)
And the George HW Bush administration used that power wisely in the first Gulf War. Every other time not so much.
The main concern for Europeans is accessible by truck over flat ground. They probably need more boats and submarines than they've got, but they don't need a B2 bomber or aircraft carriers.
> The US can't even win a war in the middle east without NATO
That is false. The US could win a war in the middle east without NATO.
The US has consistently chosen not to attempt to do so, but there is every reason to think they could. It is good that the US mostly tries to work with NATO on the middle east (and bad that Trump has not).
The US has also consistently chosen to send minimal ground forces, and when they do send them they are very careful to protect the lives of their soldiers at the expense of winning.
However there remains every reason to think the US could make different decisions and win wars in the middle east alone.
The US has lost every war after World War II, it is also lost in Central and South America when it comes to long-range infrastructure, having a rail system stuck in the 1950s is not gonna go anywhere, not leading the charge in Central and South America and getting that Pan American highway or Pan American railroad built from one end to the other?, and where is that highway or railway leading all the way to Nome, Alaska? The billions, trillions of dollars wasted, and US Steel which is now, owned by the Japanese.
By the way, if it wasn’t for the Russia’s ill fated war, the Chinese would have high-speed rail built out all the way to Europe, and would be making plans to build out all the way to South Africa, the Chinese have even taken the lessons of Oak Ridge, Tennessee, and are gonna have Thorium up and running sometime in the early 2030s.
When it comes to Mercantile and Infrastructure China is one step ahead.
The US's objectives have rarely including a traditional win, so that isn't a useful think to ask about.
I don't know where your US rail system comparison comes from, but the US rail system is not stuck in the 1950s, the US rail system is the best in the world and has innovated. You might be thinking about passenger rail, but that is small subset of rail and not useful for most US needs.
Pan American highway or Pan American - these are feel good ideas of questionable benefit. They would sound good on paper, but they would not be useful for much: flying is faster (and probably cheaper) for things that need speed, while the nearby ocean is much cheaper for things that don't need speed.
You're probably right. The wars have served their purpose, i.e. distract voters from domestic issues. Who in power cares if they win or lose if they're still in power?
The other poster said "to distract from some other issue".
There are various people who point out that winning as most define it was never the objective in the first place, and the US doesn't care.
After WWII England (and to a lesser extent France) decided they didn't want to pay to be the world super power anymore. The US took over that roll, but to appease those who don't like that the US is willing to appear as a fumbling idiot despite meeting their objectives.
There are probably other reads, those are just the 3 I can think of right now.
The tricky thing these days is trying to figure out whether messages like this are coming from Russian or MAGA bots ;) In any case, good work comrade! Here's your potato / Trumpcoin. Now back into your troll cave.
I’m trying to remember the last time an international criminal court judge came to my community and brandished a firearm while shouting slurs at me. It has to have been at least a few weeks now.
Concrete examples to verify such claims please? Also in civilized countries such things are decided by the justice system, not the government (which to the surprise of many simple minded people - like a certain US president and his fanbase - is independent from the government).
Germany for instance? Google "Bundesverfassungsgericht". I don't think such a separated checks and balances system is all that unusual in democratic countries. A major task of a "proper" justice system is to keep the government in check.
The judiciary is always a part of the government. It may be notionally separate from the executive, but that's (a) a different thing and (b) not always meaningful from the perspective of normal citizens. And it's not at all standard that the judiciary is meant to keep the government in check. Historically that's not been the case at all, and the growth of US Supreme Court style powers to invalidate legislation is a relatively recent phenomenon that governments can decide to end or restrict arbitrarily at any time.
The word "government" seems to be used differently depending on language and country.
For instance in Germany, the specific words "Bundesregierung" (Federal Government, or just short "government") and "Landesregierungen" (State Governments) explicitly describe the "executive part" of the "political system".
The Federal and State Parliaments are the "legislative part" and the courts are the "judiciary part" (with the "Federal Constitutional Court" at the top). This whole idea of strict separation of power is the most important foundation of the German political system.
When talking about "the government" in Germany, people mean the institutions of the executive (mainly the chancellor and ministries, sometimes also including the president, but never the parliaments and courts).
And tbh, I would also have a hard time describing the US Democratic Party as the "current US government" just because they're sitting in the Congress.
The term government is ambiguous in English as well, which is why people who want to talk precisely about statecraft use the words "executive" or "administration" to refer specifically to the part that isn't the parliament or judiciary. Sometimes people use the word "state" to refer to the combination of all of them, but in common parlance the word government can be used interchangeably with the word state and people who aren't especially political would normally do so.
In the US it’s common to only use it to describe the entire apparatus for holding, administering and enforcing state power.
But it can also be used to mean the current ruling power in a parliamentary system together with the administrative bodies under its direct control. So something more akin to just the executive branch in the US system. And then certain state agencies such as the judiciary are meant to be independent of the government under that meaning of the term. I believe this is the most common understanding of the word outside the US.
The Judiciary is one of the 3 branches of the US government. Perhaps English isn't your 1st language, but the courts are always part of the government and the word government would include the courts in English. No, there is no other interpretation of the word government in English.
Its a really weird use of the word government to not actually refer to the government but to the executive and saying the “courts are outside of the government” makes it seem like they aren’t a part of the state.
Consider though system like the Swedish system which existed in the Viking age with Things and a king.
Things were courts with huge power, and consisted of a gathering of all free men and had basically unlimited power, because they were the people. Meanwhile, the government was the person of the king.
I think that's an example of a system where the courts (Thing) is clearly not part of the government.
The concrete example would be Canada "debanking" the truckers who protested in Ottawa for exercising their GOD given right to free speech. Another concrete example would be Germany having banks close accounts for the AFD and AFD related people.
1. the AfD thing was the decision of individual banks, not of the German government. Basically, in a free world companies can decide who they want to do business with.
2. the Canadian trucker "debanking" was quickly resolved because the Canadian justice system did their job and overruled the unlawful "emergency" government order
After being heard to exclaim "Will no one rid me of this turbulent priest?", Henry II subsequently explained that the 4 knights each came to their own individual decisions about how best to deploy their swords.
Being a democracy does not make countries immune from the phenomenon where under their own judgment, private actors decide with information provided to them in part by their own government, it’s more often than not in their best interest to be with them rather than against them.
What if the private company is "deciding under their own judgement because the VP's roomate from College is a chief of staff and they were told it would be really helpful if they decided in a beneficial way? We saw from the Twitter files that Twitter had an active relationship with members of the Democratic party and agents of the government to decide under their own judgement to ban or downrank certain people and ideas. This led to another concrete example of major outlets being effectively banned (The New York Post) due to the Hunter Biden Laptop issue. This behind the scene collusion is where the "they are a private company" line falls apart.
They are private companies. That doesn’t mean it isn’t in their best interest to maintain good relations with the people directing the nation’s sovereign power.
Never forget: sovereign power outranks corporate power. Corporations are better at making money. Sovereigns are better at violence.
The obvious answer here is "the one that you hate." Or, the Christian god of Abraham.
The preamble is not subtle: "Canada is founded upon principles that recognize the supremacy of God and the rule of law."
Now, legally/philosophically speaking, the Canadian concept of free-speech is laughably weak, as is all Canadian rights. Specifically, section one clearly states that rights are subject to "reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society". Effectively, if the government decides that you're "not reasonable," you have no rights.
The American system is quite clear about their rights being absolute and derived from God, where the idea is that the government is to uphold the existing divine rights afforded to all human beings, as opposed to the British system of which Canada (and the rest of the common-wealth is based off of) is a part of, where the government _grants_ the rights.
Another example of this is the British crown, in which authority is given by God. Many of the older cities derive their local authority in the same way. If I recall correctly, I believe that the city of London is so old that they actually mixed it up, and derive theirs from "time immemorial."
> The American system is quite clear about their rights being absolute and derived from God
No, the legal system is not; there are non-legal documents which claim both of those things, but being subject to “reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society” is very much how the US elgal system treats them. There is even, in federal Constitutional case law, an established, gradated system of tests (rational basis test, intermediate scrutiny, and strict scrutiny) depending on which right is at issue and for whom it is being limited as to whether there is sufficient justification.
The same people who will tell you it's wrong to debank truckers for blocking highways will also complain that we don't debank climate protestors who block highways.
All men, being created by GOD, have certain inalienable rights, like free speech. Whether a country infringes upon those rights or not is a different story. Germany has a history in authoritarianism that seems to persist.
He was debanked by every bank in the UK, for entirely political reasons, and then they lied about it.
To what extent this was explicitly coordinated by the government versus people who are merely strongly ideologically aligned with it is unclear; in systems as totalitarian as the UK is becoming it's a distinction without a difference as anyone not so aligned is quickly removed for one plausible reason or another and replaced with someone who is.
Err, no, he was debanked by Coutts and then denied accounts at every other bank. You apparently didn't read the statement he made at the time, so here it is:
> I emailed the chairman, a lackey phoned me to say that it was a commercial decision, which I have to say, I don’t believe for a single moment. So I thought, well, there we are, I’ll have to go and find a different bank. I’ve been to six, no seven banks actually. Ask them all, could I have a personal and a business account? And the answer has been no.
Denied accounts at seven banks, and in the end he was right - the reason Coutts tried to close his account was simply because some woke committee hated him, it was purely political. There are no legal or commercial reasons to deny him an account, yet somehow, every bank does so. With no bank in the UK he cannot make payments and without that ability he cannot live there, so the banks came very close to ensuring that the British people could not vote for him even though Reform is now the most popular party.
The British establishment is entirely homogenous on this, because they claim anyone who supports Farage is insufficiently committed to "diversity and inclusion" (leftism) and thus must be forced out. It's indistinguishable from the banks all being directly controlled by the Labour party. The only reason Farage was able to stay is because Coutts were impatient; it was the dying days of the Conservative administration and they suddenly realized what was about to happen to them if they didn't make changes sharpish, so they stuck the FCA on NatWest and some heads rolled. But if Coutts had waited a bit longer until the next Labour government, there would have been no help coming and British democracy would have become even more sickly and fake than it already is (I say this as a British citizen).
As far as I can discover, we only have Nigel Farage's word for the seven subsequent refusals from other banks. The issue with Coutts is on the record, as there was subsequent legal and regulatory action, etc. I for one don't believe Farage here. He may have been turned down by some other fancy private banks, but that is not the same thing as being debanked. In fact, NatWest (owners of Coutts) explicitly offered him a standard bank account when they notified him of closure of his Coutts account: https://www.reuters.com/world/uk/nigel-farage-says-set-lose-...
The notion that banking, of all industries, has been taken over by woke leftists (please supply your own scare quotes for the first of those appellations – I give up) is for the birds. As for the establishment, your own take on this is inconsistent, first saying that the establishment is entirely homogenous and aligned against Farage, and then pointing out that the government of the day helped Farage to get his Coutts account back.
This is quite different from the claim that Coutts, of all organisations, was in hoc to 'woke leftists' while the country was under a Conservative government.
You don't actually think the Tory party is right wing, surely?
Theresa May et al instituted net zero basically without a vote, huge liberalisation of various social matters, enormous spending on welfare, locked the country down, and then imported 4 million people!
They are or at least were in those years died in the wool woke. They minted coins with "diversity built Britain" on them, rishi held one up for the camera!
Again, we run into the fact that 'woke' is now a meaningless term of abuse. Most people would take it as an uncontroversial and largely apolitical observation that ethnic minority communities have made a significant contribution to the history of Britain (which was the point of the coin). If you think that's an example of woke extremism of some kind, it says more about you than about the Conservative party.
Sunak himself certainly didn't present as a dyed in the wool wokist in the lead up to his permiership:
> Whether it’s pulling down statues of historic figures, replacing the school curriculum with anti-British propaganda or rewriting the English language so we can’t even use words like ‘man’, ‘woman’ or ‘mother’ without being told we’re offending someone [... etc. etc.]
He launched a (short lived) website and organization to try and support people who had been debanked, so no he wouldn't. Farage is not focused on libertarian politics, if he ever was.
From what I can read on various news sites, not even LePenn blamed the government directly. All those cases were either business decisions of companies who can freely decide who they want as customers, or quickly overturned as unlawful by judges.
It would be good if you did at least a minimal amount of due diligence before spreading misinformation (but I guess spreading misinformation is the whole point).
You mean right-wing terrorists? The ones that forcibly invaded the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021 and attacked police officers in an effort to distrupt democracy?
Currently in the US, it's not criminal if it's done at the bidding of Trump, or if Trump approves of the violence.
The federal government is still stymieing the investigation of the ICE/DHS killings of Minneapolis citizens, violating their own policies requiring investigation.
There's no more federal rule of law until there's a full change in power, and that requires installing a functional DOJ and a new Supreme Court that is more interested in the law than in furthering partisan politics.
Are you saying the US government been implementing sanctions to make right wing activists not be able to receive bank transfers? That sounds like friendly fire and backwards, are you sure you understood the "source" correctly?
Wow, I think disagreeing with a lockdown in the face of a pandemic is pretty fucking stupid but even so, freezing people's bank accounts is even more messed up and should not happen over any sort of non-violent political actions in a modern democracy. Seems unblocked now, but still that seems like a bananas reaction.
For reference as I hadn't heard about it before:
> Isabelle Jacques, assistant deputy minister of finance, told a committee of MPs that up to 210 bank accounts holding about $7.8 million were frozen under the financial measures contained in the Emergencies Act. - https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/emergency-bank-measures-fin...
They were blocking highways with their trucks, and the same people who criticise this still want to debank climate protestors who block highways with their bodies.
No california has an NGO homeless industry, which gets paid on the amount of homelessness. They are incentivised on increasing homelessness, thus this is what they do.
Because the UK wants them. They can stop the boats at any time. They can stop feeding and housing them at any time. They come because the UK government and NGOs provide them with a comfortable life.
I think you mean "Because the UK wants them, only 2% or so of illegal immigrants arrive by boats".
Boris Johnson did Brexit "to stop the immigrants" ... and opened the floodgates. The very opposite of what his campaign promised. The very opposite of WHY the British public wanted Brexit.
It's the minimum requirement under ECHR. The government does actually have to comply with its legal obligations, this isn't America. They can't choose to just ignore them.
This is why the problem hasn't been fixed. You can't say "just do X" when X isn't legal. Do you really think nobody's thought of this? That the government actually likes being in this position of the past decade or so?
You're implying they should have been kept there? I'm not following. It looks like they were maliciously sent there without an agreement, and still were treated humanely and forwarded somewhere that agreed to take them...? You're criticizing this?
And the border communities loved having them there and invited them? Everything I said was factual. The voters of those northern communities love supporting policies as long as they happen someplace else. A thing called luxury beliefs.
> Although their travel to Massachusetts was facilitated by DeSantis, the migrants who arrived on Martha’s Vineyard on Wednesday came from Texas. The DeSantis administration paid an aviation company, Vertol Systems Company Inc., $615,000 to transport the migrants from San Antonio to the exclusive vacation enclave.
So Florida spent $615,000 to pick up some people from Texas and dump them on an island in Massachusetts?
...and you imagine that this makes the people in Massachusetts look bad?
This is more likely going to be a situation where they were always xenophobic.
There's a rather uncomfortable interview with a local resident (of many years) who is Australian with a Jamaican husband, saying "well great now I know all my neighbours hate foreigners".
This isn't a good example of xenophobia, assuming you are using the word for its colloquial implications (I.e. simple race-adjacent hatred, and not just the fear of a large group of new strangers of a culture or circumstance that is alien to your community).
Have you read the book or your kids just read it without you knowing what is it about?
This book says basically - no biggie, there is no death, you commit suicide to move to another level to be with your brother, you can't lose him, you have infinite lives in this videogame called Life. And what if I F up the next level? no biggie, you just commit suicide again to be with him, there is no such thing as permanent death/separation from your loved ones, after each death you just move to another level. That's really F up thing to teach small kids, who should know death is permanent.
I think you miss the point of this book. Karl had tuberculosis, Jonathan died saving him from a fire despite knowing Karl would soon die (which he did). No suicide there, only tragedy. Then they had an "afterlife" which is full of the adventure they wished they had when they were alive - which also means that there's some serious darkness there to fight, so not heaven by any means. In the end, Karl gets to do for Jonathan essentially what he did for him, and they're ready to move on. They didn't commit suicide, they were already dead. I don't think a single Swedish kid killed themselves over misunderstanding this book, they didn't miss the part that the brothers really treasured life and it was a tragedy that they died in the first chapter.
Interesting that math gets so much attention, when actual advances to material science, biology and chemistry have much higher ramifications and economic benefits. I assume progress there is kept under wraps until they can capture the economic benefits. If they can do that, then the insane valuations may actually be valid.
reply