ormr

A lot of it is truthful information for sure. But sentences along the lines of “the west has never forgiven Haiti” are quite obviously biased and tell of a rather black-and-white view of the world. The west is not monolithic. Haiti is so far away from those countries that most of the west probably couldn’t care less about what’s happening in Haiti. Just like most South American countries couldn’t care less about what’s happening in Ukraine.

With the former colonial powers of Haiti, especially France, that’s of course a different case and they contributed a lot to the sad state of affairs in Haiti.

Or “if I were president of Haiti, first thing I would do is remove Haiti from Caracom”. Yeah… Okay why? Whatever the history was, why would someone think that less regional cooperation would improve anything for Haiti? Also what kind of undemocratic mindset is that? You could at least say “I would do a referendum.” Alright, she was probably joking… But she’s definitely far from unbiased or objective.

In any case I think if you asked the average Haitian what they would like to see in their country it’s probably the same thing people need and crave everywhere: Peace, and a good economical perspective to improve their livelihood. And for that it doesn’t matter if you’re part of an empire or not. You can very much be free and be part of an empire.

Ultimately you need stability to achieve peace and prosperity and the chances for that are often even higher when you’re part of an empire. Most people on earth would always prefer peace and stability over revolution if there’s any alternative to the latter.

Lol, sounds totally unbiased to me…

After all, why wouldn’t you believe in unbiased reports from a channel named “neutrality studies”?

The problem is not that one has to communicate the significance of research. However since the people with money don’t understand the science, they can easily be mislead. And there are also big trends when it comes to funding so you can participate in the buzzword olympics to secure your funding. And this is where you leave the path of just communicating your research and its potential honestly.

The second point where this Nobel prize winner is very right is that it’s all about networking, all about names. I don’t know why we can’t just publish research under a pseudonym, a number would suffice. This would make publishing and reviewing less susceptible to bias.

Sorry, my irony detector must be malfunctioning.

And which reviewer or publishers verifies how “significant” a contribution is beyond seeing some initials matched with tags like “visualization” or “experimental design”? That’s right, nobody. It’s not even remotely traceable who did what if you’re a reviewer.

Academia is full of fraud and people trying to secure their share of credit because in academia it’s all about names, as the twitter exchange above illustrates so profoundly. And the other driver for the sad state of academia is of course having the quantity of published papers as the most important criterion for academic success. The more papers, the more citations, the bigger your name will become. It determines your chances of getting funding and therefore your career. If you want to make a career in science you have little options but to comply with this system.

And I think one reason for that is that while kebab may be fast food, it’s surely no junk food with all the vegetables inside. And inflation for vegetables in Germany has been crazy. Besides, energy and cooking oil prices have been skyrocketing so no matter if you prefer a vegan option like falafel or meat, all aspects of kebab production have been increasing significantly.

Okay, I’ll believe that right away. I thought you were maybe talking about the technology in general. But now it seems like you were referring to these particular projects which are are abused for greenwashing instead of research and continuous improvement.

Are there some studies to back that claim?

Stupid at this point in humanity’s history? Why should it be stupid to make it cheaper to fly payloads into space when we have unprecedented demand for renewable energy? Without interference of the atmosphere we could harvest solar energy much more efficiently and reliably.

We are likely to see a space elevator build in 100 years and it will be a good thing for humanity. For example we’ll be able to remove nuclear waste from earth and send it away for good with negligible costs.

These are just two economic examples. From a scientific perspective cheap space flight is valuable because it enables a lot of advances, like the next generation of space telescopes, working as interferometers without atmospheric disturbances.

So I think it’s everything but stupid for humanity to expand it’s space operations if this is accompanied by meaningful regulations. The latter of course will require a lot of energy to achieve.

Thank you for your comments. I feel the same. And I can especially understand that you would tie promotions to at least hybrid. If you’re responsible for other people, need to discuss, brainstorm and instruct, it’s just a necessity to show up in person every now and them.

And c’mon… Being obliged to work hybrid for a promotion… It’s not like that’s a draconian measure at all.

They probably have their identities tied to meat consumption. That’s also a reason for the climate denialism. I recently learned about petro-masculinity and it seems very plausible to me.

Okay, I understand that. I’m also worried that the wrong corporations are going to profit from it, as they’re currently doing. The “right corporations” however could play a big role in speeding up the changes we need so urgently. If that’s going to happen is a question of incentives. And incentives are created by regulating markets so that they optimise for the benefit of society. Of course I don’t see many politicians out there who get that or are eager to regulate markets whatsoever…

(Diebstahl!)

Klingt für mich fast nach einem Versuch des öffentlichen Dienstes, moderner zu werden. Da würde das genau so laufen hahaha.

So I assume your solution is that we go back to the woods? Or everyone just become subsistence farmers?

The lines that investors see go up and down are prices, detached from physical reality. The economy is a real thing that outputs goods and services that all of us use every day. How could we not be worried about it? We want to change the economy, decarbonise it, but we don’t want to get rid of it.

So how is humanity gonna solve multiple global crises without an economy?

Tongue brushing is underrated.

CDU: fik logik

Ah cool. First time I’ve seen that!

And moreover it was about not deploying nuclear weapons there, which they haven’t. The commenter above has it wrong. The soviet diplomats were no idiots at all. They knew exactly what they negotiated and agreed to and it’s precisely what happened.