The "Remind white people of what happened 300 years ago" in question is an explainer on how a 19th century Super El Nino wiped out over 3% of the world's population, mostly in Asia, despite the fact that these regions had experienced famines and droughts at numerous points in their prior history. The video then asks the question, "Why was this so much more deadly?"
The explanation posits that this was only possible due to the multiplier of the rapidly expanding British empire. It is not posited as British/white people are bad, it is posited as society, politics and trade creating a multiplier effect. The whole point of this section in the video is to setup the final chapter of the video, asking the question, "Could this happen again?", which feels like a valid question given that society, politics, and trade have exponentially evolved since the 19th century.
This section of the video is portrayed so agnostically that I felt compelled to reply to your vague criticism.
Here is the video linked to the timestamp of the aforementioned section, which is only around 2 minutes long, so others can pass their own judgement: https://youtu.be/69o-8Mtd3Kc&t=330
Not sure how you can be here for the science if you're not willing to be here for the history.
Always loved the Surface Duo. I really liked the separation of the screens too; felt like dual monitors vs. ultrawide. It also forced the technology to focus the valueprop on multitasking versus more immersive/more bigger/more better. I'm curious about the iPhonr Duo; I have not been a huge fan of iPadOS or iOS, the former making me often wish for a macOS experience and the later having felt slower and less responsive over time (mostly due to animation speeds/aesthetic choices rather than a hardware defect).
Ah. about 30 seconds ago they mentioned in the (still ongoing) keynote they said it was removed to recoup space for internals. I recall the 3.5mm jack removal being motivated along similar lines. I wonder, assuming the space where the SIM slot would've gone was filled with increased battery size, what that delta would in duration. I'm from the US, cursory reading about global eSIM adoption surprised me (only 30% and most of that 30% is in the US vs. my assumption of >50%). What prevents adoption elsewhere? Consumer demand for swapping? Curious to hear your POV on it.
I don't trust carriers to get things right, and I don't see any benefit in switching my main card to eSIM - I inserted the physical card once when I bought the phone, and it's going to stay there until I get a new phone, simple as that.
eSIMs give a lot of control back to the carrier. My carrier does not allow transferring eSIMs between phones, but I can trivially move their physical SIM card.
How is it superior when viewing w/o an account is impossible? From my POV this was the moment X/Twitter completely rejected its stated mission of being a town square.
Doesn't the FEC already regulate contribution limits? The debate is where the line is and when the line comes into play. Society is a constant negotiation between individual freedoms and collective safety/social order. You have already ceded some rights in this vein. It is not controversial to see an unfairness in some citizens/their vehicles having many magnitudes more influence over the common citizen. Citizens United is a conduit to a standard that can be hacked by money. Arguably, the dilution of your own political leverage in this paradigm is a greater inhibition to your rights than a stricter contribution limit ever could be, in the long term.
We can walk and chew gum at the same time. The real world doesn't require us to negate the commentary that the ultra wealthy people/corporations could be doing a lot more good than they're currently doing on the basis that the government is spending money irresponsibly/against the greater good.
The explanation posits that this was only possible due to the multiplier of the rapidly expanding British empire. It is not posited as British/white people are bad, it is posited as society, politics and trade creating a multiplier effect. The whole point of this section in the video is to setup the final chapter of the video, asking the question, "Could this happen again?", which feels like a valid question given that society, politics, and trade have exponentially evolved since the 19th century.
This section of the video is portrayed so agnostically that I felt compelled to reply to your vague criticism.
Here is the video linked to the timestamp of the aforementioned section, which is only around 2 minutes long, so others can pass their own judgement: https://youtu.be/69o-8Mtd3Kc&t=330
Not sure how you can be here for the science if you're not willing to be here for the history.
reply