My plan was to be offline for about another 24 hours. Although I'm still checking Yara's account once per day, if I check it at the start of one day and the end of the next day, that's a gap of over 40 hours. The theory is that if I am online, even if I'm just watching videos for entertainment, things can happen that make me say things. Even if it doesn't happen on a particular day, if I put myself in a situation where it can happen, it's hard to say that I'm trying to avoid doing anything.
This post is not the result of me being online, because I wasn't. I was thinking randomly as a result of not having anything to distract myself; I even thought for a bit that I might go to sleep, but that seems unlikely now even though it's 22:45 my time.
A random YouTube video led me to this article: ["When her face twitched"]This Crucial Harry Potter Scene Was Even Worse in the Book
I have not read the Harry Potter books. I have no interest in reading them. Maybe the only reason I acknowledge them at all is that Mionelol probably got the name from the character Hermione. Yesterday I tried to look up if there were any funny discussions about the "meta" of dueling in the Harry Potter world, as in a discussion of which spells are useless (because, for example, it takes too long to invoke them due to too many syllables) and which spells should be spammed, which would allow for judging whether duelists are skilled based on whether they know and use the "meta".
One series that I read when I was young was the Dragon Knight. In, I think, The Dragon at War, the 'novice' main character accidentally disables a powerful French magic-user with the word "freeze".
(My browser had the display bug, had to restart it.)
According to the article, people criticize a character because the fact that her face twitched — despite her intending not to show that reaction — showed her inner feelings. They judge her based on her feelings, not based on her actions. They say, if only her inner feelings were different, other people would have acted differently, and she is to blame for how those other people act. (Or they don't even use this logic and just criticize her because of her inner feelings, regardless of her actions or anyone else's actions.)
But it's also an example of the tiniest mistake affecting people's judgement.
I have — when I remember — suggested that I am not trying to get you to share this idea, ever since I stopped emailing you in January. People might say that if I did something that I said I wouldn't, it would be like the character's face twitching.
I am switching strategies. As of this post, I am trying to get you to share this idea.
Greta made a video about people being deported from Sweden once they turn 18. This better explains the issue, compared to a video in Swedish she posted a week ago. They are people who are in the country basically illegally, but Sweden doesn't want to be accused of deporting young people, so it waits until they are legally adults.
My view: Sweden, like all countries, doesn't 'deserve' its economic prosperity. It is, basically, being bad, and letting people stay in the country is encouraging them to also be bad. Having stated my view, I will see if the data that I look up supports this view.
Hypothesis before looking up data is that fossil fuel prices have risen along with world GDP per capita, which makes it difficult for poor countries below the average to achieve the economic growth that other countries did when they had that GDP per capita.
The price of oil:
https://www.google.com/search?q=our+world+in+data+price+of+oil
Results:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Price_of_oil "Before oil, whale oil was used in lamps, as lubrication, etc. It was very expensive."
https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/oil-prices-inflation-adjusted
https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/world-crude-oil-price-vs-oil-consumption
https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/fossil-fuel-price-index
GDP per capita:
https://www.google.com/search?q=our+world+in+data+world+gdp+per+capita
https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/global-average-gdp-per-capita-over-the-long-run?time=1940..latest
World GDP per capita is about four times what it was in the 1940s. If oil was about US$140 per cubic meter in the 1940s (adjusted for inflation, just like GDP per capita), and is now around $500 per cubic meter, that is also four times higher, although there has been a lot of variability and oil had increased by a lot more than global GDP had in the year 1980, for example.
https://www.google.com/search?q=our+world+in+data+afghanistan+gdp+per+capita
Only goes back to the year 2000. Afghanistan's measured GDP per capita was 22% higher in 2023 than it was in 2000, at $378. If one looks at YouTube videos of life in Afghanistan, one can believe that the country would have been pretty similar in 1940, other than population:
https://www.google.com/search?q=our+world+in+data+afghanistan+population
https://ourworldindata.org/profile/population-demography/afghanistan Population 7.8m in 1950, 41.5m in 2023.
https://ourworldindata.org/data-insights/afghans-report-the-lowest-life-satisfaction-in-the-world The reason people who grew up in Sweden don't want to go to Afghanistan.
If countries achieve economic growth by creating machinery that can use fossil fuels to do work, and fossil fuels are a scarce resource that are allocated towards countries that are already rich (whether because of patents that transfer money from poor people to rich people or using those fossil fuels more efficiently and creating more profit from them than a poor country would create) and also cause climate change and will soon run out, then the entire economic model is bad. If rich countries can't show poor countries how to have a good, 'advanced' economy if they too poor to compete for expensive fossil fuels, then those rich countries aren't showing us that they can remain rich in the future once all fossil fuels are expensive — putting them in the same position that poor countries are in now.
No comments:
Post a Comment