The mosquito species in question is native to northern Africa, and is an invasive species pretty much everywhere else in the world, having only arrived 300-400 years ago.
This flies in the face of my own experience travelling all over the world, where the poorest people would offer me extreme generosity and not accept anything in return.
Maybe it's bias because I'm an "exotic" white guy in many areas and not just a random down on their luck average guy from their own region.
I've also been offered generosity by rich people, as well, but, I will generalize, that mainly came after I demonstrated some proof that I didn't actually need their generosity
Have you ever been to truly starving places? Not taking about poor countries, literally starving places, like, Syria in WWI. Where if you don't steal from your neighbor, your kids will die of hunger. That's the kind of environment where compassion is a luxury. A lot of China was like that _even if for a short time_ in the last century. That leaves deep scars.
Not a lot of the world is like that today, you'd have to go pretty far out of anything considered tourist-friendly to see conditions similar to Mao-induced famine.
There are definitely SOME aspects of generosity tied to abundance and some not. Some might offer you the cup of cleanest rainwater found in their plot of rubble and others might chase you away using the stolen phaser gun tucked under their clothing. Or maybe it's more influenced by inequality within the society rather than absolute material abundance.
> This flies in the face of my own experience travelling all over the world, where the poorest people would offer me extreme generosity and not accept anything in return.
orrrr maybe poor people you've encountered are poor exactly because they are generous in competitive environment - and non-generous became rich and successful
Maybe it's country dependent. I have seen what you describe in countries where christianity is the dominant religion and most people in those countries something like 70 to 80 percent identify with it. And religion in those places is most prevalent among the poor, so much so there is a direct relationship between poverty and religion, the more religious, the poorer.
Everyone who downvoted you are the type to step into another pile of dog shit the moment they finish scraping their shoes. Regressing into spirituality doesn't fix this. High trust paired with opportunity does.
not one person has called you out for consistently sounding like AI so I'll be that guy and cop the downvotes, in case a human is involved in the loop I will also respectfully provide an actual response - did you have a way or some evidence to back the possible insights contained in your strangely metaphored comment?
Hah, that's pretty funny. I expect to be downvoted on HN half the time, but since you asked I'll do you a favor and confirm I'm not AI. You might want to take a break.
Right back at you, I'm not sure what the deal is lately with some comments insisting on quotes or citations or "proof" of anything. To me, they seem like gambits by paid trolls. I'm just making observations from experience.
Something to ask yourself is where the honest truth is supposed to come from if it's always borrowed from somewhere else. People are free to make up their own minds.
Tomlin is a poster child of how hard it is to drop early impressions of someone. He came in as a hot shot, but after last season he was going on 8 years since a single playoff victory.
He did the best with what he had, as all coaches in the NFL are bound to do. He dealt with a Big Ben playing well into his decline, then a bunch of 2nd and 3rd string QBs, and then the prima donna/flake Aaron Rodgers, which was likely the deciding point for his retirement. He could have had his pick of coaching jobs if he wanted, and the steelers record over his tenure was something most teams would dream of.
He stayed at the Steelers too long. He should have gone somewhere with a better QB, the Steelers should have bottomed out enough to be able to draft a good QB.
Andy Reid is retiring when he gets his 303rd regular season win. At nearly the same time, Tomlin is going to find he once again has the zest for coaching.
Maybe there will be an inversion. Lots of white collar office jobs can be partially automated, or have their efficiency greatly increased by AI. But we still don't seem to be near widely deployed robots that finish drywall
There may be an inversion as white collar jobs sink, but not because drywalling is going to get better. All of my family work in trades and it's a lot harder and less stable than we office workers like fantasize, as much as I love the ending of Office Space too. It's cyclical and sometimes there's not enough work. Cost of materials is volatile and can eat into your income. And it's skilled. Programmers tend to think everything else is easy and if you can teach yourself React then electrical should be a no-brainer. That's to say nothing of start-up costs. It was incredible that we coders could bootstrap six-figure careers with a $4000 MacBook Pro. Trades workers need a truck, you need power tools, if you're not loosey-goosey then you need insurance. All of that costs a lot.
That's for anyone joining the trade. Out-of-work middle-aged programmers with soft keyboard hands and little or no experience hanging dry wall? Why pay them any more than the 24 year old guy. AI may automate us out of our desk jobs, but the downward pressure of us transitioning to trade jobs, even at the bottom level, will only make those jobs less lucrative.
You think the drywall company is going to hire you? Why would they hire someone in middle age with no experience when there are no shortage of 20 year olds who already know the trade?
The rat, having been caught by the rat catcher, complains there are other, bigger rats. But he's still a rat.
The uneconomical project, having been called out, complains there are other, even more expensive activities. But that doesn't change that the project is too expensive.
Nah. Groups of people spending hours and hours debating whether it is smarter to buy the $1.95 or the $1.99 can of beans at the store is being silly. Just pick one. Or buy both! It's only two bucks and we spent $2,000 on flights to Europe last week.
What an absurd analogy. Of course it's worth spending time when deciding if billions of dollars are worth spending on something. It's worth entire individual lifetimes of effort if one can save that much money.
I just think it's silly to focus your efforts complaining about $5B being arguably somewhat inefficiently spent, versus hundreds of billions of dollars going straight into the garbage. There's far better things to focus on if you're concerned about money going to waste.
We can probably calculate the investment, but how do you calculate the return? What's the value of solving a crime? Is it solely the value of preventing some future crimes by the suspect, or does it have intrinsic value?
reply