Comments by "Luredreier" (@Luredreier) on "The Infographics Show" channel.

5:57 The gripen isn't 4th generation but a 4,5th generation, able to go up against the likes of the F35 and hold its own if you have more of the Gripens (matching its price difference to the F35). 1 vs 1 the F35 is better, but the difference isn't nearly as big as you seem to think.
21
+ @rasmusfabernrgaard6461 They're a part of the Danish *kingdom*. Part of "Denmark" the country... Eh, that's highly debatable...
10
The problem would be the fundamental difference in interests. Denmark and Norway are more costal then Sweden is with all that entail. Sweden and Denmark are more continental then Norway is, with all that entail. There's a reason why Sweden and Denmark joined the EU and Norway and Iceland didn't. For Norway, Iceland and the Faero islands fishery and good relations with the current naval powers of the world takes priority over good relations with the continent. For Sweden and Denmark good relationship with the continent matters more then to us due to your geographical location. Norway is also a mountainous country and mountain people tend to be more independence minded in general, as you can see with the Switz, Norwegians and many other people of the world both currently and historically. We've also been the lesser part in a union a bit too often with all that entails and as a result we're even more consious about the drawbacks of not being in power of our own destiny. Something that is also reflected in how our country is structured. Not just around our capital but very much decentralized while Sweden has allowed its own rural communities die we've activly faught against centralization and for the power and prosperity of the rural areas. In part because of that land area counts about as much as population numbers when distributing parliamentary seats among the electoral circles. Your electoral systems also differ a bit from ours. In Norway there is no lower limit in terms of voters required to enter the parliament. If you have enough votes in a electoral circle to earn one of the 150 seats that directly represents the electoral circles then you'll get a seat no matter how few votes was required to achieve that. This makes it easier to create and run small political parties that can stay relevant politically. That said, like you we do have leveling seats. And you're required to have 4% of the votes nationally to be eligible to those leveling seats. There's also a difference in what number we use to modify the Sainte-Laguë method. Interestingly from what I've heard you've dropped yours down this year.
6
There's a slight problem with calling the pope the big guy prior to the split since that's kind of what the split was all about. He wasn't but claimed to be.
4
+GameFuMaster If we didn't use huge areas of lands to grow food to feed those animals then the land could be freed up for wildlife to live and die naturally instead. Sure they'd eventually die, but they'd have normal lives that they've evolved to live instead of living in factory farms that (and I don't mean this offensivly) quite frankly has too much in common with holocaust in my view for me to be comfortable with it...
3
8:15 No, it's not. The US subs are actually slightly behind some European ones. Not by a lot mind you, and the advances in the nuclear tech used to power US subs might bring the US back to parity with us in their newest generation. But till some evidence of that is presented the US nuclear subs are actually inferior to the European sterling powered diesel subs for now in actual combat. Mind you, they do have a range and endurance advantage that is vital for power projection making the US style subs better suited for US needs. And regardless of how they compare with our subs they are better then the Chinese subs right now as those are even noisier then US and Russian ones. The videos on this channel tends to be a bit US centric and a bit too uncritical of what quite frankly is propaganda from the US armed forces and the US industrial-military complex... The US arms industry and armed forces keep claiming that various american equipment is the best in the world, yet the evidence of that seem to be lacking... Frequent US wars vs inferior (both technologically and in terms of resources, training etc) forces doesn't really prove anything...
2
+hede53607 No, a 100% vegan world would be just fine for the enviroment. A 100% vegetarian world too, although some of the benefits of a vegan world would be reduced.
2
+Samip Adhikari I've never heard about "Olga vegetarians". The ones I'm aware of is lacto-vegetarians (vegan diet + milk products, cheese is often an issue due to animal rennet, but cheese made with microbial or plant based "rennet" would be ok), ovo-vegetarians (vegan diet + eggs), lacto-ovo-vegetarians (vegan + both milk and eggs) Vegans (no animal proteins at all), RAW Vegans (no animal proteins at all + no boiling or frying food, just fresh, dried and frozen food), Fruitarians (no eating of any parts of plants that the plant didn't intend to be eaten, so berries, fruits etc is ok, roots etc isn't). Also, there's some categories that's not strictly speaking considered vegetarian like pescatarians who eat vegetarian or vegan diet + fish. And there's also some people that for some weird reason consider themselves vegetarians while they still eat chicken for some weird reason, I have no idea why they'd think they where vegetarians with that diet... Still, that would be good for the enviroment. Basically cows are the worst for the enviroment of the animals we hold while birds are the worst when it comes to animal welfare so chicken and eggs are pretty high on the list of things to quit for animal welfare and animal rights activists. As for what's worst from a feeding the poor point of view it's pigs as a majority of everything that pigs eat can be eaten by humans too. As for fish, eating fish that's low in the food chain like herring is actually not all that bad from an enviromental perspective as long as we don't overdo it, in other words make sure that it's fished from a sea where the fish in question isn't close to being endangered due to overfishing. However species like salmon and cod are often breed these days in fish pens and feed food made from other fish that's fished all over the globe, some of that fish is endangered and while fish isn't nearly as wastefull as say a cow (only about 2/3rd of the food you put into a salmon ends up wasted and 1/3rd ends up on your dinnerplate) it's still... problematic... Especially as there's no way for you to know where the fish feed to the salmon on your plate came from... On the whole though I don't really want everyone go go 100% vegan. I'd like people in general to be more consious about their food choices. If everyone cut down meat, egg and fish consumption to 1/10th their current levels that would be a huge improvement for our planet. And then we'd perhaps be more willing to actually pay for the few animals we'd still kill to live good lives in farms that's not factory farms but where they'd actually live relatively free and happy lives, unlike what we have now... I don't even have words for what we currently have in this world... Small amounts of meat as a dietary supplement is actually healthy for our body, the "normal" meat consumption in all western nations however is anything but...
2
+ @vincentkvl It's the "part of Denmark" bit that is debatable... The same applies to a lesser degree to Åland. The Faero Islands and Greenland have some degree of independent relations with other countries. They have different cultures and languages. And through most of their history they where not a part of the Danish kingdom at all, but either independent or a part of the Norwegian kingdom. They have never truly been integrated into Denmark even though there's been multiple Danish attempts at doing so. And the futile Danish attempts at integration has largely been in the process of reversing ever since the second world war left the Faero Islands, Iceland and Greenland in the hands of the allies while Denmark proper where occupied by Germany. There are different laws that applies to them then Denmark proper even if there's not many of them. Some of those laws even predates Danish rule (in the case of the Faero islands there's one for ownership of land of the coast where any land that you can ride on with a horse even if it is underwater belongs to the owner of the land above water as well if I don't remember wrong) They are different nations and arguably different countries within the Danish Kingdom as well.
2
@Fabio-zc7bs That's what I meant with price difference. Basically 10 vs 10 the F35 might have a edge. But if you have two air forces spending the same amount of money on purchasing planes and then training pilots for a certain number of years the Gripen will most likely come out ahead at a certain spending amount because of cheaper training and higher numbers of gripen fighters available.
1
3:46 You switched up the Norwegian and Danish flags... Regarding a united scandinavia... I doubt that would be a good idea. I think it would be a good idea to do something in between like the current EU for us. But in the end we do have different interests. Norways main priorities tends towards fishing, oil and the worlds sea powers (mainly UK and US). Denmark is more continental looking towards Germany while also being a costal nation. Sweden is even more focused towards the continent then Denmark is in part because historically they've been cut off from the sea by Denmark-Norway. And because they have a fairly cosmopolitan culture of course.
1
+gang Actually, most chocolate doesn't contain gelatine, however there are some that contain either gelatine or various milk products, some of them made with animal rennet (rennet is originally made by killing a calf and taking the enzymes from its stomach, this is the traditional way in many countries for making cheese, basically those enzymes "pre-digest" the milk till you've made cheese out of it)
1
+TheUltimate Weipin I recommend that you look up common misconceptions about vegetarianism on a website like the one of the vegetarian society...
1
+Katie Mich While some vegetarians do choose to wear leather, most who are consious enough about their choices to not eat meat also choose not to wear or use anything made from leather. Yes, it might be a waste, but paying for the leather would also help found the meat industry, likewise if you accept gifts made of leather bought by others you'd get a similar effect... As a result vegetarians in general are sceptical to the practice of wearing animal based products (among vegans even wool is often considered unacceptable) and there's debates about things like honey. There's some debate about whether or not people who use leather products can be considered vegetarians in the first place...
1
+Horaţiu Mlendea The term is used about a lot of different things by a lot of different people. The vegetarian societies generally use the definition that vegetarians eat vegan diet + milk based products, eggs or both. Please see my previous post about the topic. When providing food for someone who's vegetarian start with a vegan diet (as all vegetarians and most vegans can eat normal vegan food) and then potentially add other things if they tell you that that's ok for them. For companies making vegetarian food they're meant to start have something that's almost vegan but possibly include eggs, milk or both, but that those should be clearly labled as not all vegetarians eat all types of vegetarian food.
1
+Horaţiu Mlendea Well, from a health perspective I suggest replacing the milk based products with something else, a mostly milk based diet is worse then both a mostly meat based one and a mostly plant based one from a health perspective. However from a animal-welfare perspective it's way better then say eggs or meat while there might still be some issues at times.
1
+Bad_Bass _Trout Actually while we humans evolved from insect eaters who turned into fruit eaters our ancestors then evolved into omnivores who mostly was eating meat left over from the predators (rather then hunting ourselves). So like hyenas we're actually relatively good at surviving bad meat compared to most animals out there. Doesn't mean that we can't get severely sick from it, but as long as we're smart about it we can eat animals who have died of natural causes relatively safely. That said, except for relatively recently meat was always a nutritional supplement for human kind more then a stable of our diet (except during the ice age when we started hunting the mega fauna for a living and a diet completely dominated by meat became the new norm in temperate climate zones for humans, interestingly we've actually evolved to some degree to cope with those changes in diet in certain parts of the world, Europeans are much more capable of utilizing dairy products then most parts of the world, and Inuits are much better at dealing with large quantities of meat and the fats involved, while the people of the US and western Europe has actually slowly started to evolve the ability to manage more fat in the diet without gaining weight as fast, we're still getting overweight by our diet though, it's just not as bad as when say an Asian comes here and try to live of our diet... Oh, and then there's the whole issue of portion sizes, todays single individual portions for a single meal is what was expected for four or five people less then fifty years ago)
1