Comments by "" (@timogul) on "RealLifeLore" channel.

Conversely, if it dipped slightly further south to cover Naples too, "southern Italy" would be in even worse shape.
118
@jemcoop1 Corruption occurs with or without colonialism. If corruption still exists in countries that have not been colonies in many decades, then they are not caused by colonialism.
22
@Gurra_Gforce How could Florida be any better on that count? Have you seen who they put in charge?
10
Yeah, that trend will balance out once Florida is floating.
8
If their coastal areas have such high humidity, wouldn't there be some way to build some massive, highly efficient forms of "dehumidifier," to suck all this water out of the air and into a practical form? I'm not talking just taking a standard home dehumidifier and making it massive, I'm talking like big towers or something that use shape and materials to naturally suck the water from the air with little to no energy use.
5
And yet that barren area alone gets about 15-20 US senators. Fair. . .
3
It's not accurate that demonetized videos do not get shown to people. If you put it on Youtube, it would be shown to all of your 7m+ subscribers. It would be more accurate to just say that you don't WANT to put the video on Youtube because it would not be profitable to you. That's fair, but it's misleading to claim that the video somehow could not exist on Youtube.
3
"Race to the bottom" at work again. Imagine how much better Texas could be if they'd had better governance over the past few decades.
3
@Gurra_Gforce Yes, but what an insult that would be to have Flordian neighbors, right?
2
Southern Italy should build a Venice.
2
The US is the same way.
2
@ And so did these African countries, in many case far more investment. It didn't help.
2
Most of America's history can be defined as people trying to get democracy past conservatives.
1
"Why This Lake is the Deadliest in the World". . . bees.
1
@leob4403 If humans weren't "playing god," we never would have left the trees.
1
@leob4403 A building can't collapse if you never build it, but also it is within our power to repair buildings so that they don't collapse, and so that is what we should be focused on. there's no reason to live in the mud when we have the capacity to do otherwise.
1
"The city" never builds anything, property developers do, and they choose to build luxury condos because those sell for more money than they can make off of affordable housing. The only way to get affordable housing into the city would be for the city to cut special tax deals to developers to make housing that is available at low costs specifically to low income people.
1
There need to be international treaties, equivalent to the Geneva convention, that obligate dam builders to ensure that those downstream always get their fair share.
1
@ttemp2631 You can sometimes get countries to sign on to treaties in exchange for other things. Obviously China would not benefit from such a treaty directly, but if say a bunch of their trading partners said "sign on to this treaty or we cut back our trade with you," then it might be in their interests to do so. Most of the specific goals in international deals primarily benefit one side, you always need to figure out ways to make it worth the other side joining on.
1
@ttemp2631 You have to handle it in the right way, but there are plenty of cases where China has made trade concessions where it was put in their interests to do so. They don't take kindly to overt threats, but if you hand them a carrot and a stick, they know what to do with them.
1
@ttemp2631 This is my point. Declaring that "there is no way China would ever agree to this" is inaccurate, they would obviously be unlikely to agree if they got nothing out of it, but there are certainly benefits that they might value as much as the water rights they would be negotiating away. Keep in mind that in times of non-drought conditions this would amount to basically no problem at all, since it would only kick in once water levels dropped to a certain level of scarcity.
1
@ttemp2631 The way I see this, it should be a global thing, it should be a treaty that hundreds of countries all sign on to, to guarantee water rights around the world. It might be part of a larger package that include other rights that China would care about, or it could be a thing where various other countries nudge China into signing onto this because they get something completely unrelated they want. I could not tell you what that would be, I just know that every country has their levers, and people who follow china much closer than me know which would be best in this situation. I'm not saying that they could definitely get China on board, I just don't see how it would be impossible. They value their autonomy over the upper Mekong, but they also value a lot of other things, both things they have that could be taken, or things they don't have that they want, big and small, and there would be a deal to be made here. I just see water rights as a major issue coming into the back 3/4 of the Century, and it would be a really good thing to get everyone on the same page.
1
@ttemp2631 This is how international diplomacy has always worked. I'm not sure what you find so baffling about it. You get people to sign on to some agreement that is clearly against their own interests, because in return they get something that is in their interests. Someone just needs to make them the right offer. They clearly have not done this yet. Why are you arguing?
1
@ttemp2631 Yes, but nobody can GET their own interests if we accept that everyone is chasing their own interests, because EVERY interests that benefits one side also harms the other. If nobody would ever agree to a position that was not in their own interests, then nobody would ever agree to anything. So that's why you need to line things up on each side of the balance sheet so that they are good for both parties. I want an apple. The store does not want to give me an apple, because then they would have less apples! Why would they ever give me an apple? The store wants my money. I don't want to give them my money, I want to keep my money, why would I ever agree to just give a store MY money?! But. . . if I agree to give them some of my money, and they agree to give me their apple, then I would have an apple and they would have my money, and we would both be satisfied with that arrangement! So this is how all diplomacy works, "here is what I want, even knowing that you don't want to give me that thing, but what DO you want that I could give you so that you would agree to give me something that you don't want to?" China clearly would prefer not to give up sovereignty over the upper Mekong, no doubt. Nobody has yet made them an offer that they would accept yet, or they would have accepted it, no doubt. But there are clearly things that China wants, and if someone offered China one of those things in exchange, they might sign on. Just because it hasn't happened yet, doesn't mean it would never happen in the future. What are you not getting?
1
@ttemp2631 And my point was that this is the sort of issue where the international community should get together and bring in the offers that would work, not just for China, but for all the potential holdout countries. Ethiopia might be disadvantaged having to follow water rules, but there are plenty of other things they might want that they would exchange for that.
1
Mexico: "There's lots of mountains, so it's hard to make things work." Meanwhile, in Japan: "So anyway, we just decided to make the third biggest economy in the world."
1
"Knock knock, Mr. Real Life Lore? Flower delivery!"
1
It's not accurate to say that Youtube would not promote the video, it would. You just choose not to put it on Youtube. That is your choice, but please be honest about such things in future.
1
How DARE European powers just follow the existing national boundaries that the Turks had been using in the region for hundreds of years! That's the cause of all of this! What the Europeans did, I mean, not what the Turks did, or what the people of the Middle East constantly do to themselves. But the Europeans. Definitely their fault. It's almost like "borders" have nothing to do with it, and that it has far more to do with sectarian divisions that can NEVER stabilize, because wherever the lines might get drawn, one side will insist that they own territory held by the other. ALWAYS.
1
@trent20817 Didn't seem so fine during the blizzard a few years back. Don't seem so fine with all the shootings going on over the past few years as gun laws have gotten looser and looser. Don't seem so fine when people have to flee to other states to get abortions. Texas is a mess. It's just a mess with a lot of oil money propping it up.
1
I think that you're factually incorrect in saying that Youtube would not show people the video if you posted it here. They show plenty of videos discussing similar topics, and they do show up for people, particularly if they already subscribe to that channel. You should really give it a shot, rather than just assuming (incorrectly) that the video would not be shown to people.
1
I would think this is a case where the easiest route would be a coastal highway. Just build all the parts in chunks and carry them over by sea to be installed.
1
@Hobbsdad I know that they are built in many different ways, depending on the necessary conditions. I know that pre-fab roadways are not common, but given the concerns about the rain making it difficult to pour concrete on sight, pre-fabbing it might be more effective, and given the concerns over significant elevation changes and jungle, just avoiding that completely might be the better course.
1
@Loj84 Fair enough.
1
Why are people still arguing about land that's been held since 1967? When does "common law" apply?
1
Wyoming is all well and good, but no way do they deserve two Senators and more than half a Representative. We need to do some state consolidation.
1
Meanwhile, in the US, Republicans want to import ALL of this.
1
So, out of curiosity, if China and the US did come into conflict, how many minutes would it take for the US to disable all of those pipelines?
1
@andremarques3317 Maybe, but that's true of ever country. Every country has had troubled periods. At some point, people need to take responsibility for their own actions. Even on an individual level, having bad parents is not usually counted as an excuse for a grown adult committing a crime, much less blaming their great-great-grandparents. If countries like Japan or Germany can move forward, Africa has no excuse.
1
@ Maybe, but that's true of ever country. Every country has had troubled periods. At some point, people need to take responsibility for their own actions. Even on an individual level, having bad parents is not usually counted as an excuse for a grown adult committing a crime, much less blaming their great-great-grandparents.
1
@Abyssinian_0 If a country is run by a dictator, there really isn't an option to deliver aid in a way that does not get skimmed by the dictator. It's either do what you can, knowing that only a portion of it will get where it's needed, or do nothing at all. China is popular on the continent because they don't care and just pay the dictators directly.
1