Maybe, but that doesn’t matter since automated age verification doesn’t work. Kids always figure out ways to bypass it, and it snares unlucky adults all the time.

Nineteen brazillian? Wow, that’s a lot.

Some use something called a “bag-closing chain stitch”, which is done using a special bag-closing machine. The way it works is that the machine punches the thread through the bag material leaving a loop on the back side. It then connects that loop to the next stitch. The thread holds the bag securely closed, but if you pull on the right part of the thread each stitch disconnects in a chain until the whole thing is undone.

My post was way too long because it goes against the popular sentiment. If you agree with the popular sentiment, you can afford to have a short post. If you disagree and keep it short, people will downvote you for the things you didn’t mention, or will accuse you of not considering X.

Anyhow, I’m in favour of investing in neighbouring countries, or just donating to them. There are problems with donating some things like food. It helps keep people alive, but it also means farmers take a hit because they’re competing with free. But, it’s hard to argue when people need food or they’ll die. Donating training and skills development is a better path. I know someone who works at an NGO that works with local NGOs to train their leadership to be more effective. I think that’s one of the best things I’ve heard of for helping other countries because it just makes the people living there more effective at what they do. But, it’s not a quick process.

I’ve also travelled and that’s why I want borders, at least for now.

We should definitely be working to raise people in the poorer parts of the world out of poverty. I’ve been to some developing countries, and life there is extremely hard. That’s why so many of them want to move to a rich country where they can live a better life.

Yeah, as a rich westerner, borders are an annoyance. It’s great going around Europe and going from the Netherlands to France without needing a passport or anything.

Having said that, in the Netherlands and France, and most other western countries, there is a great social safety net paid for by taxes that makes sure that everybody living in those countries can live a decent life. But, even Europe was put under stress by the fact that some countries in the EU have a GDP per capita that’s half what it is in other places.

A fair number of people migrated to richer countries within the EU for a better life. Most found a job and worked. They contributed more to the countries than they received in benefits. Even then, that was hard on those richer countries because it displaced some of the lower-wage workers, or depressed their wages. Despite this, the EU has mostly held together, other than Brexit, and the majority of the UK now regrets Brexit.

The important thing to remember is that the EU vets members before allowing them in, and was slow to allow the poorer Eastern European countries to join.

If the world eliminated borders tomorrow, the richer western countries would be swamped by poorer people from developing countries seeking a better life. There’s no way that the systems in those countries could cope.

The rich might love it. Suddenly there would be hundreds or thousands of people competing for the lowest paying jobs, allowing the bosses to offer the lowest possible wages, the worst possible working conditions, etc. The ultra-rich business owners could get rid of unions and get local workers for next to nothing.

For the slightly less rich, the professional class, it wouldn’t be too bad. Their jobs are protected. You need to pass the bar to be a lawyer. You need to do a residency to become a doctor. Their professional associations would continue to do the work necessary so that say a doctor in Nigeria didn’t have their credentials recognized in the west.

The less wealthy you are, the less protected you would be. For someone whose job doesn’t require any kind of diploma, certificate or degree, there would be no protection. They’d be competing with every unskilled person who came into the country seeking opportunities.

Even if you personally think that chaos is a small price to pay for a more fair world, a lot of people don’t. The rise of far-right and fascist movements in the west is a direct result of increasing immigration. If borders were eliminated, not only would there be a lot more far-right voters, there would probably be violent clashes, even mass slaughters.

A lot of people hate globalization, but it has resulted in raising a lot of people in developing countries out of extreme poverty. It has done that mainly by taking wealth and power away from the poorest people in richer countries by shipping their jobs overseas. That part sucks. But, at least a lot of people in developing countries are no longer in danger of dying if they have a bad few weeks.

Programs like USAID were a better way of doing some of the same things. These were often subsidies for US farmers whose produce was then just donated or sold extremely cheaply to developing countries. There were of course problems with this system too. Often the “farmers” receiving the subsidies were rich corporations. But, it did raise the floor for some of the worst-off people in the world.

If we can continue to find ways to help people in developing countries, we should do that. Hopefully we can find a better way to do it than we’ve done in the past. But, even a less-than-ideal solution does help. Eventually, we may be able to reach a point at which we can remove borders without resulting in a mass migration that overwhelms the systems of the richer countries.

There are really 2 problems:

1. Flour is essentially dust. It’s really hard to find a good way to package dust.
2. Flour is really, really cheap. The packaging needs to remain a small fraction of the overall cost.

A couple I know moved from Canada to the UK. Even at 6ish years old, despite being raised by them, including one as a stay-at-home mom, the kid had a strong British accent.

Luckily, they’re mostly immune, although my friend does now say “gareridge” instead of “gahraje”.

And if they’re just passively sitting next to you while you’re watching, that’s fine.

But, it’s different if they interrupt to ask questions, or rewind, or if they need the subtitles on even though they’re not actually really paying attention.

A lot of people glance up at the screen, read the subtitles, then go back to scrolling.

I’d love a subtitle standard that would allow me to move them to a dedicated screen under my monitor today

AFAIK in movie theatres they have a closed captions system that’s basically like an individual teleprompter device for anybody who needs the captions.

I can see the movie / TV show, but the shots are ruined.

Cinematographers spend so much effort coming up with the perfect shot. They have amazing lighting, the perfect angles, the subject framed exactly right, the focus is perfect, with the background being blurred exactly the right amount.

And then some jerk ruins all that work by slapping text all over their perfect shot.

It’s like trying to listen to a good song while a DJ talks over it. Or, like trying to taste a delicious meal while someone is smoking next to you.

Also people watched TV. They didn’t have the TV on while they scrolled on their phones and didn’t pay much attention. I’m sure that not concentrating on what’s happening is part of the issue for a lot of people.

What makes you think that the average politician is actually a leader, rather than just a follower who pays attention to polls? That would imply they have a spine, which seems unlikely.

That might be the optimal solution to you and me, but it isn’t the optimal solution for the rich and powerful. Apparently the average voter hates the sight of homeless people more than they hate hostile architecture too.

And it’s impossible to get a decent night’s sleep outside with all the traffic, pedestrians, noises, cops, etc. unless you self-medicate. If you can’t get a good night’s sleep you go insane.

And politicians think removing their best option is a solution?

Because it gets them votes. The politicians aren’t the problem, they merely reflect public attitudes.

Sure, commuters with jobs are the bourgeoisie.

Cheaper too.

But, it’s probably not the optimal solution. I suppose it’s a step in the right direction. As bad as hostile architecture is, the old way of dealing with the problem was to have cops beat the shit out of homeless or drunk people if they tried to sleep in a place where other people might be offended or annoyed.

It really seems to me like many people really want to recycle and make a difference if they can, they just need a gentle nudge, or for it to not be too difficult. It’s just that other people don’t want to feel bad about not recycling, so they speak out against any change that makes it easier. Then there are the idiots who are in denial and think climate change is a hoax.

If individual behaviour didn’t matter, Canada wouldn’t have 307% of global per capita emissions, and the US wouldn’t have 285% while Finland only has 118% and Sweden has only 71% of the world average.

I picked those European countries in particular because they’re rich, have cold winters, and have a low population density in a lot of the country.

The reality is that the US and Canada are decades behind Europe when it comes to these things. Sure, this guy in panel 2 is telling his kid to recycle, but Americans never took recycling seriously. Meanwhile in Zurich you have separate bins for green glass, brown glass, clear glass, along with the normal paper and plastic. If you don’t want to recycle, you can do that, but it’s going to cost you. You have to buy expensive special garbage bags to throw out anything that you don’t recycle.

In panel 3 the guy is shown with a bike, but less than 0.5% of people bike to work. Meanwhile, in Finland, it’s about 10% of people who commute by bike.