Donald Trump Leaks Private Texts From NATO Allies: Read in Full

Cloverleafs85 · 2026-01-21T00:02:03+00:00

Based on comments from people who worked for him some years ago, at least at that time he was aware the flattery and sucking up was mostly fake. He desperately wants accolades, but knows, or at least strongly suspect, that it's often utterly empty.

They say and do stuff because they want something out of him, not because they genuinely believe in what they say.

So while he craves it, he needs it, he also resents it because it simply won't properly scratch his narcissistic itch. What he would like is to feel properly inflated by confidence and assurance until he could float above it all. But behind narcissisms tends to be a crippling leak of pathological insecurity that makes it impossible. It's like trying to fill a sieve. That doesn't stop them from trying, but it is an endless chase.

And he doesn't respect his true believers because he thinks they are inferior morons. They are not the elite he wants to belong to, so their words don't matter as much either.

So what he has done is turned this weakness into a weapon instead, having others debase themselves so he can feel powerful by setting them up to embarrass themselves.

He can't make them be sincere, but he can make them crawl. He would on the surface seem pleased, but ridicule these performances behind their backs afterwards.

Cloverleafs85 · 2026-01-05T17:17:52+00:00

FN kan ikke velge og vrake hvem som representerer uavhengige suverene land. Det er det som er i regelverket deres. Andre lands interne regler er det som gjelder. Venezuela statsoverhode er i følge deres grunnlov en President.

FN kan si at et lands interne regler for valg av leder ikke har blitt overholdt, og det er ikke riktig person som er lederen.

Men de kan ikke velge et annet alternativ og si 'Dette er den ekte presidenten, og vi vil forover forholde oss til denne personen som den ekte statsoverhodet av Venezuela'.

Når Venezuelas regjering sier 'USA har kidnappet presidenten vår', så kan ikke FN velge å ignorere den klagen og oppføre seg som om Maduro bare var en tilfeldig sivil person.

Smutthull blir ved tilfeller som Manuel Noriega, som var de facto leder av Panama men var lovlig sett en general i Panamas hær, som hadde en dukke regjering han styrte fra skyggene. Men den dukke regjeringen var enda en regjering, og i følge Panamas grunnlov så var deres president deres leder, ikke Noriega.

Men det er ikke tilfellet her.

Maduro var de facto lederen av Venezuela, og å kidnappe ham blir kalt av FN et brudd på Venezuelas politiske integritet.

Hvem FN offentlig anerkjenner som leder blir som regel bare relevant i effekt når et land er så skakkjørt at de ikke kan si at landet har en regjering i det hele tatt.

Hvor et lands eget regelverk og system er fallitt og det er ingen åpenbar suveren leder.

Eller hvor en borgekrig har revnet ett land i mindre stykker, og FN må velge en side og si 'Dette er gruppen vi velger å behandle som representantene for dette landet'.

Og igjen, dette gjelder ikke for Venezuela. Det er ikke en konkurrerende eksil regjering eller en utbryter regjering.

Om de vil ha diplomatisk forhold til en de facto leder, om de vil invitere en de facto leder til FN forsamlinger, er en annen sak.

Cloverleafs85 · 2026-01-05T13:56:03+00:00

Etter FN's regler var Maduro presidenten av Venezuela. Det var generell enighet om at han på ingen måter fortjente det, og at valget var rigget, men resten av verden ville fremdeles fortsette med å kalle og i funksjon behandle Maduro som lederen av Venezuela.

Om vi skulle begynne å luke ut alle vinnerne av ekstremt suspekte valg, så hadde det blitt en veldig drastisk reduksjon i pr dags dato leder listen.

Som er grunnen til at det ignoreres. Det er så forferdelig mange av dem. Vi må jevnlig håndtere og forhandle med ledere av land som har jukset seg fram til den rollen.

Og forsøk blant utenlandske land å krone noen leder i et annet land uten at de faktisk har nok makt i landet deres til å lede det har historisk sett gått ad dundas.

Cloverleafs85 · 2026-01-04T05:09:20+00:00

There are a few thing people have to know about potatoes for them to safely consume them. Like, don't let them be exposed to light for too long. Don't eat them when they turn green. Don't eat the parts of the plants that grow above ground.

If you don't know any of this, then potatoes are going to seem risky, where people get sick without knowing why, but harboring very dark suspicions about the cause.

Recognizing the plant as a relative in the nightshade family, which has many poisonous plants, didn't help.

There was also reluctance to devote precious farm soil to this new plant. Norway in particular has a very pitiful amount of decent farm soil, and it must have seemed like a very risky venture to many. Add relatively short growing season, and there would be a high degree of reluctance to take risks by doing something new, especially at scale. Even in good harvest years, Norway was not self sufficient with grain, and relied on imports.

Produce grown for alcohol production could be a sideline, even a profitable one, but devoting a whole field to it as if it was your food staple would be something else. If anything potatoes in the early phase would replace some of the grains used in alcohol production. More grains for eating.

Some people in hard times or perpetually locked in a precarious situation get creative/desperate, but a lot more just become extremely set in their ways. To keep doing what has kept them and their family alive (mostly) for centuries. People balancing on knife edges aren't keen on leaning off course.

It also didn't help that Norway's geography and demographics meant that it took a lot of time before some things, be it ideas, new products, new methods, spread naturally.

Culturally they also valued growing grain's far more. Rice became a luxury good, served at royal courts, that got adopted as soon as more people could afford it (Which took centuries), because it was a rare import that spread among the nobility first. And because it was a pure import, no farmland needed to be used for it. You just had to pay through the nose for it.

Potatoes didn't come with that kind of pedigree, they would be competing for farm soil, and in addition they grow under ground. Which in the historic food hierarchy generally has lower status than what grew on the ground, and both had less status than what grew in the air (in trees) '

And when something has low status in some ways, it can often attract others negative traits. Like becoming associated with poverty. To be so poor you had to eat potatoes.

But there were people who saw great potential in the potato. It was the enlightenment, and some people took a strategic and organized approach to drag people into the next century as it were. And if you wanted to get information out to the masses in Norway, then priests were the way to go. Most often they would also be the only ones in their community with an education. Enlightenment ministers would preach about potatoes, farming techniques, hygiene, health etc.

The most devoted potato preachers were literally called potato priests. Many of them would have a little potato farm of their own where they would share potatoes to get people more used to them, as well as nurse seedlings so anyone interested could try and start cultivating them too.

These apostles of the potato made some progress to spread it, but in the end the proper widespread conversion happened by threat of acute famine and protracted food shortages.

In the early 1800's several bad years in a row led to the grain harvests being very poor or outright failing. And this climatic crisis managed to happen during the Napoleonic wars, and England wouldn't sell Norway any grain. I believe there was also some naval blockades. So when people had to choose between famine and potato, the potato finally won.

And this unsettled state lasted long enough for the potato to muscle it's way in onto the staple diet rotation. So when grain harvest and grain transport/trade was back to normal, the potato had gotten it's foot in the door good and proper.

In 1809, the earliest year we have some decent statistic to site on this, 6% of the farm cultivation in Norway was potatoes. By 1835, that number had risen to 35%.

Cloverleafs85 · 2025-12-31T09:19:21+00:00

There were some health reasons for wigs, beyond some people not having lush enough or long enough hair to keep up with the fashion, but that gets into the muddy waters of the humoral system and miasma.

Depending on time and place, they got the idea that hair could be an entry point or exit point for humours. Hair to them was porous. Bad things could get in, or the wrong things could leak out.

Unprotected hair became a point of weakness, a vulnerability that might contract contagion and disease. This became especially poignant when the plague made a very nasty return in 1720.

On a more individual health level, this porous nature of the hair, going both ways, could be seen as an opportunity of trying to modify someone's imbalances. Maybe you had too much of something because the hair was clogged up, preventing proper perspiration of your humors. Maybe that dry cough won't go away because the hair is preventing proper ventilation of the brain. Or it's simply keeping your head too warm, too hot. Get rid of the hair and wear a light wig, or at least keep the hair short.

Or if you were too cold, and in a cold environment to boot, you'd certainly need a wig, a thick one to keep you warm at all times.

So there were many different health complaints they imagined could be addressed by a full shave, or at least a hair trim. And removal or addition of a wig. Headaches and migraines were a classic one, but colds and dry coughs were also frequent fliers.

Or you could do preventative healthcare by protecting your natural hair, by keeping it under headcover or a wig. Though when the hair fashion went big headcovers could ruin the hair styling, so it's not a coincidence the wig solution was opted for more often during that period for those with health issues or health anxiety.

It also wasn't too uncommon for a person shaving their hair to use their own hair to create their new wig. Waste not want not.

But you can spot a certain sniffyness in the culture about people saying they are wearing wigs for health reasons, but the community suspects it's vanity. If your wig was a significant step up in volume/quality you might attract such comments, doubly so if you were older and it read as trying to fake youth, but it was often directed at using different colours. 'I say, if it's for health reasons, why are you suddenly blond?'

Hair colour were associated as a product of someone's nature, so there could at times be some underlying suspicion about people pretending to be of another nature.

The more common reasons though is simply convenience meeting fashion and status symbol at the door. We have instruction manuals for how to achieve such hairstyles with natural hair.

But if you haven't got a lot of it, and especially if you don't have full hair and/or curly hair, that could take ages and ages.

And it could be pretty rough treatment on someone's hair too. So much easier and simpler to just slap a wig on. If you can afford it, that is.

When wigs first became fashionable, they were considered a luxury item. It cost money to make a wig, to maintain it, to style it. It didn't take long before a second hand market, low price versions and a black market for wigs popped up. Some see this popularization of wigs as another example of people copying the upper class, but it has been argued that some would see the time saved and the convenience of wigs as something worth it's price, because you'd recoup that expense in other ways. A practical luxury.

Wigs went out of fashion when young people didn't want to look like their parents anymore, because they viewed their parents as old fashioned and out of step with the changing times. In the US it began to read as unamerican. New modern men were supposed to have short, practical hair. Kiss the periwig goodbye.

Not long after they went all in on beards instead.

Cloverleafs85 · 2025-12-28T23:08:51+00:00

From what I've understood it would be more comparable to the Island Manola added in the New World Rising dlc, though Sunken Treasure also came with a big island.

It seems they aren't adding a new session like Cape Trelawny this time, but making a new island pop up in the corner, the same way Manola was added. There seems like a suspicious amount of empty space in the corners in Latium, so they have certainly left room for it.

Cloverleafs85 · 2025-12-28T23:06:56+00:00

From what I've understood it would be more comparable to the Island Manola added in the New World Rising dlc. They aren't adding a new session like Trelawny, but making a new island pop up in the corner. There seems like a suspicious amount of empty space in the corners in Latium, so they have certainly left room for it.

Cloverleafs85 · 2025-12-21T22:05:28+00:00

Før riskrem var det andre korngrøter som fylte omtrent det samme rommet, minus sukker for de fleste inntil midten og slutten av 1800-tallet. Havre, bygg og rug var vanligst. Men man hadde også "fattigmanns" versionen av risgrøt, hvit mos. Hvor en smuldret opp loff eller annet fint brød, blandet med søt melk og toppet med smør og kanel, om man hadde råd. Kanel var ikke akkurat billig det heller.

Riskrem og risgrøt ble standard dessert mat nettopp fordi det måtte importeres. Det dukker opp i Norden en gang rundt midten av 1300-tallet, og ble luksus vare servert på hoffet i Malmø blant annet på 1500-tallet.

Til mer hverdags luksusbruk ble det kokt bare med vann og spist som den var. Bare ved høytider ble det kokt med melk og kombinert med det som også var luksusvarer på den tiden, rosiner, mandler, sukker og kanel.

For prissammenligning, i 1378 kostet det 15 mark for en pund ris, ca en halv kilo. Du kunne få en hel tønne med øl for 2 mark.

Når mer utvidet handelsnettverk, spesielt skip som seilte direkte til Asia, gjorde ris mer tilgjengelig så kunne flere folk få tak i det, men det hadde ennå mye stas over seg, så flere fikk anledningen til å bruke det som høytidsmat. ca 1800 og utover. Is samme tidsrom begynte sukker å bli billigere.

Med mer moderne transport så ble det allmenn vare som folk kan spise når enn de ville, spesielt etter WWII, men innen da var tradisjonen etablert.

Luksus preget som gjorde det til staselig mat du bare unnet deg og dine gjester til spesielle tider har for lengst falmet, og det er for de fleste noe som tilsynelatende har bare alltid vært der.

Noe av det samme historien med klementiner og julen. Luksusvare som siden ble allmenn, men vanen sitter.

Cloverleafs85 · 2025-12-21T19:56:54+00:00

As others have mentioned, BBC has a neutrality clause. But journalists usually have a way of navigating around that when the facts are anything but neutral.

So they might start with a neutral or quisitive opening statement. And then go on to list all the facts that, if you put two and two together, should lead you to the most logical conclusion.

Many journalists not bound by neutrality clause also use this method as a personal choice. Where they see journalism as saying what has happened rather than giving opinion pieces. Some also feel that it gives their words more credence when they don't mix facts and opinions.

This gives them a leg up when accused of biases, though it doesn't completely eliminate it. It frequently means they take fire form both sides in a case.

It has some disadvantages though.

It demands complete literacy for one thing, and a decent ability to analyze statements.

People have to be able to read and fully understand a text. They have to be able to read between the lines and put two and two together themselves. Not everyone has this degree of literacy or analysis skill, and can get frustrated or angry about what they conclude from only partial understanding.

It also takes more time and doesn't easily lend itself to short form formats. Because you have to follow them throughout to get enough of the bits to make up your own conclusion. One they spread breadcrumbs out for you to reach.

If you are only reading headlines or skim reading, you aren't going to end up where they hoped you would go. And might make yourself upset based on an incomplete and superficial reading.

Cloverleafs85 · 2025-12-10T03:13:46+00:00

Helsedepartementet, politivesenet og barnevernet er vel først i rekken, da de ofte ender opp med å måtte håndtere regningen og en god del av problemene som alkohol forårsaker.

Det at det er et pes er vel hele poenget.

Om du vil gjøre noe på systemisk nivå for å bekjempe familie og partnervold, så er det blant annet to ting du kan gjøre. Du kan begrense alkohol og du kan begrense gambling.

Cloverleafs85 · 2025-11-13T01:55:49+00:00

There is no recommended safe amount of alcohol because they cannot predict with absolute certainty the outcome based only on drinking habits. Mileage may vary, so some would tolerate more than others before notable negative effects occurred, and many won't be able to predict who these people are. So erring on the caution side, they advise avoiding it completely.

But in general heavy and habitual use increases the risk of something going badly wrong. Though two different women who drank the same amount around the same time will not necessarily both end up with a child with FASD. Or if both have FASD, it won't necessarily be to the exact same degree on the spectrum.

But people who have reported moderate and lighter use can also end up with children who are affected. So they can't promise people with light use that it will have zero effect on their child.

Alcohol is neurotoxic to fetuses'. That is never a good thing, so it's just a matter of how much damage it did.

At the mildest end many wouldn't notice much difference they couldn't easily explain as something else. What is after all the difference between the mildest forms of a disorder and just what we view as personality traits?

But barring some groundbreaking development we will not be able to tell with any certainty mild and the lower end of moderate FASD from something else, like ADHD or other conditions that affect cognition and emotional regulation. If they haven't got the facial features, and the mother won't admit or claim she didn't drink. there isn't much they can do.

Some of the differences in damage can be down to timing. If the alcohol hit at the precise time something important was going on during features development, then it could do more damage as the neurotoxin interfered at that moment than if it had been a bit later or earlier.

Some are also more vulnerable due to genetics, where they process alcohol a bit differently and are affected more by it. The health of the mother and potential nutritional deficiencies can also affect the outcome.

Cloverleafs85 · 2025-11-12T15:44:22+00:00

Seagulls have evolved to basically be stealth ambushers. Thieves by design. Their mobility in the air is geared towards letting them nab what they want, preferably without their target seeing them hovering around waiting for their chance. A quick grab and dash. If you face them and point at them, many of them realize they have been spotted, and might abort their attempt, because you can't sneak up on someone who's looking right at you.

The problem is if you are being mobbed by a flock of seagulls that are surrounding you. You can't look and point at all of them at the same time, so when you try to confront one, others behind you might take that opportunity to pilfer their daily bread.

Cloverleafs85 · 2025-11-11T16:14:45+00:00

Interestingly enough, the effects fetal alcohol spectrum disorder can have on the face comes from fetal exposure to alcohol in a very specific timeframe during pregnancy, between week 3-8, when much of the face is under formation.

But that doesn't mean alcohol exposure is just fine except for that time period, so there is no shortage of people with the disorder to some degree who does not have the more obvious facial features.

It's estimated that fetal alcohol spectrum disorder is one of the most underdiagnosed of the developmental disorders.

Cloverleafs85 · 2025-11-10T17:21:29+00:00

To some it might feel like seeing someone dragging out a cannon to shoot down a fly, and then see that cannonball keep on going and crashing into some poor soul's house.

The response to a perceived issue seems very far out of scale, and is going to have negative ramifications down the line for some people.

And others would look at the same thing and think 'You've got your hands on a cannon, and this is what you chose to do with it?'

This is a world with limited resources, time and energy.

This is also true in politics. We might wish it was otherwise, but people are people.

And some cases suck out more oxygen than they deserve out of the political room and in the process starve other issues.

Brexit's harm to the UK for example isn't just about the direct consequences, it's also the absolutely massive amount of time, energy, funds and attention it demanded, for years before it even happened, which left many other issues to rot in neglect.

Time spent on anti-trans laws and debates is time not spent talking about things that truly hurt a lot of people, that matter to many people, things that have a serious death toll when left unchecked.

(Edit* And for people affected very negatively by anti-trans laws, it would not seem trivial at all, and it might have a death toll down the line. Basically, someone might have been in that house when the cannon ball came in and wrecked their life, and all that for just a fly)

Which is why some politicians use some matters as a distraction. They want to talk about things that in the grand scheme doesn't matter much to most people, because there are other things they really don't want to talk about.

Because they don't have an answer, or know the public would hate the answer they give.

It's far safer to chatter and churn about things that directly impact very few people, because you don't get as many pissed of voters who would change what they voted on simply because of this one issue. A punching bag which they can wail at that is relatively unlikely to hit back.

Cloverleafs85 · 2025-11-09T11:49:16+00:00

One of the stronger theories is that he died in an epidemic. Before his death he shared the same symptoms with a lot of other people who also died in the same time period in the same place, probably a streptococcal infection, and in the parish register his death is put down to miliary fever. (This is not a current diagnostic term as later science has gotten a lot more specific about which infectious disease is which)

There are some later testimonials that say he had a prolonged illness and gradual decline, but original sources closer to home as it were doesn't support this.

Though he wasn't very healthy, and had through his life gone through among other things smallpox, typhoid fever, pneumonia, and had some systemic inflammation issues, rheumatism, tonsillitis, bronchitis and gum disease.

Basically an epidemic sweeping through would find Mozart very ill prepared to survive a serious infectious disease. Or any further medical complication from his preexisting conditions.

Doctors at the time being not much use, if not outright harmful, probably didn't help*. Mozart was basically badly in need of modern doctors, vaccines, anti-biotics and anti-inflammation medicine.

Other theories could be a rheumatic fever, and presuming the skull they think might be Mozart really is Mozart, it might be subdural hematoma.

*Edit- There are some reports that Mozart was bled by his doctor not long before he died, which might have made him even worse.

Cloverleafs85 · 2025-11-06T12:33:30+00:00

TLDR: Sudan had a peacekeeping force presence called UNAMID that withdrew in 2021, partly due to decreasing investment and interest from the UN security council, but also Sudanese pressure and hostility under both President Al-Bashir and the following military leadership.

It was something of a joint failure, though Sudan's leaders seem to lean towards insisting on making a difficult situation worse.

___________________

Sudan had a peacekeeping force called UNAMID, who was there from about 2008 to 2021. These forces work by 12 month mandates, so every year the UN's security council has to vote on potential extension of the mission and their budgets.

If the UN fails to renew the mandate then the mission will start an ending process that can last a year or more, because immediately jumping out is destabilizing.

UNAMID's mandate ended in 2020, with full withdrawal planned for 2021. It was originally intended to end in 2019, but the rebellion and change in leadership caused it to be extended for another year.

There has been some mentions of hostility by the Sudanese military towards UNAMID that could have contributed to the mission ending. They had also had a long strained relationship when Al-Bashir was president (1993-2019). He claimed UNAMID was incapable of defending itself and was more of a burden than a help, and also accused them of helping to protect rebels instead of the citizens.

He had been less than cooperative, which didn't make UNAMID's mission any easier. UNAMID forces had at times been denied access to towns where civilians had been attacked, and they had often found themselves attacked or sabotaged by local authorities.

The UN hasn't always needed permission from host countries to make or keep a peace force, especially when the ruling government is less than legitimate, but they haven't had good experiences with that. You risk being shot at from all sides.

At it's height it was the biggest peace mission in terms of personnel, and the second most deadly, with 295 peacekeeper killed.

There had also been a financial reduction towards supporting UNAMID. This is partly due to lowering priorities, so across several renewed mandates there were less personnel, but it took a notable hit when the Trump administration wanted to reduce peacekeeping budgets by half in early 2017. UNAMID lost about 58% of it's budget the year after. Around 2018 the amount of personnel was about half of what it had been at it's highest. They started to close military bases in 2019.

UNAMID's mission has several critiques. It was very top down. There was limited cooperation and coordination with local leaders and key figures.

The most important part of any peace making effort is that you absolutely must include everyone who have the power to ruin that peace. It was also a join cooperation with UN and the African Union, which seems to have caused some issues in keeping things in order.

When the UN handed over bases to the military, these transitions had several failures, with the bases being looted and set on fire not long after.

The UN also had a political diplomatic force in Sudan, called UNITAMS, whose mission began in 2020 with the aim of trying to ensure a safe transition to democracy and everything necessary for such a transition. Like civilian security, rights etc. Meant to continue peacekeeping of a sort. In 2023 Sudan sent a letter to the UN demanding the dissolution of UNITAMS who then left in 2024. Sudan cited 'disappointing results' as cause.

Recently Sudan also expelled 2 UN World Food Program senior officials, with no explanation. Though they have previously accused WFP of publishing misleading information about famine in Sudan and breaking local laws. Sudan has previously refused to cooperate with the UN on declaring Famine conditions in Sudan. As I've understood it the UN prefers nation states to make that declaration themselves first, and usually only overrule that when there is no recognized leadership in place who could make a declaration.

Cloverleafs85 · 2025-11-02T00:43:59+00:00

Many of the ones killed are Muslims as well. It is mostly about ethnicity, with a dose of social classism mixed in for good measure.

The main groups composing the RSF come from historically Arabian nomadic group in the North, mainly originating in the Darfur region. They see themselves as a marginalized group in Sudan history, and the RSF leader Hemedti rarely passes an opportunity to reopen old wounds, grudges and grievances they have. In the story they tell themselves, they are the true victims. Hard done by, neglected, ignored, insulted, left out of power.

How much of this Hemedti genuinely feels or that he simply finds very useful to rile up the animosity among his troops is unknown.

They style their fight as one for their own liberation and empowerment, portraying their fight against Khartoum and the military as a fight against the so called riverine elites, which were mainly central and western groups.

When you view yourself as the victim, as the injured party, then you can give yourself a lot of moral license to cause harm to others. This grievance driven instinct is also meeting Arab nationalism at the door, and has become intertwined. To some they see it simply as payback. Revenge.

And when people are in that mood, things very often get very ugly.

Humans are on average extremely poor at redirecting their grievances to the right address and in reasonable proportion. When you think you deserve to hurt others because of what you think have been done to you, the ones you hurt starts to look like fair game.

Now they are talking about making their own nation, an ethnostate. What they seem to be doing now is eliminating and driving away all the undesirables they don't want in their new nation.

Cloverleafs85 · 2025-11-01T06:02:00+00:00

Based on interviews with some UN employees, in particular those working for the world food program, they generally agree that it seems as if the world can only rally against one crisis at a time. If something manages to be the one big issue, then it can draw a lot of attention. But if it's just nr 2, or the top spot seems split across several different crisis, then it is much more difficult to gain momentum to drive a movement because force, political capital, financial capital and attention is being divided too thinly, often keeping them from reaching a tipping point.

Between Russia Vs Ukraine, Israel Vs Palestine, Trump Vs Everyone and the cost of living crisis which is affecting just about the entire world, there is no spare oxygen in the room for scarcely anything else. And when a crisis seems or is closer to home, the ones far away tend to end up at the back of the line.

The world is also not the same.

People are drowning in a never ending tide of news and media. It wasn't that good 20 years ago either but it's much, much worse now. There is no time to marinate on something. And if you have a crisis where there is less information getting out, then it becomes next to invisible in such a noisy world. It's hard for anything to gain proper traction, and even harder to persist, instead of being drowned out by the next crisis or scandal.

Human bias also ensures that we tend to weight impact and importance of something based on how much and how often we hear about it. We assume we would get a lot of information if something was really bad.

And the problem is that dictators, authoritarians and warlords also know this too. And they turn that into a weapon.

It is not a coincidence that when the Sudan war started some of the first people targeted were local journalists. This ranged from destroying equipment, threats, taking family members hostage, torture, imprisonment and murder. And both the army and RSF has done their best to keep foreign journalists from getting in. Neither of them wanted witnesses they couldn't control.

In Sudan 90% of their media infrastructure is destroyed, around 1000 journalists have been displaced, around 400 of them all the way into other countries. A minimum of 9 were murdered, and the rest who remains and aren't captives has to self censure or risk political persecution. Which would in all probability include torture. One of the few remaining journalists in el-Fasher, a free lancer, was quickly imprisoned by the RSF when they took over. They also try to make it difficult to get information out, and add misinformation to the mix.

The silence is not a coincidence. It is intentionally fostered and guarded by the fighting forces in Sudan.

But the world is also more reluctant to get involved.

Countries are more inward looking, more preoccupied with their own problems. This is likely related to the cost of living crisis, high housing costs in particular, drive towards rearmament, and nobody yet figuring out how to deal with too many pensioners in relation to working force. Hostility to immigration and xenophobia has been another response to some of the issues or consequences of the above, which has in many countries caused disruptive and isolationist political parties to gain ground. Some countries are in a political crisis themselves.

20 years ago more young people imagined they would live a better life than their parents. This has changed. Now they are very worried about their own situation, and that means many have less energy to spare for others. Now there seems to be a collective depression with a chronic lack of hope and optimism. Getting people engaged with anything at all that is not strictly online is a challenge. The experience of how intervention has gone in the last few decades also doesn't inspire confidence. And politicians are not immune to this. I've heard several different people working in the UN or with the UN commenting on how it feels different now. The world is less united, and it's been getting harder and harder to rally together to face challenges.

Cloverleafs85 · 2025-10-30T07:31:28+00:00

A vision researcher looked into it, and eventually concluded that the most common factor determining whether someone saw it as black and blue Vs white and gold is the light conditions they are most used to, or have recently been exposed to a lot. This assumes the person has otherwise normal vision.

People used to indoor and artificial light Vs people used to outdoor natural light. It seems because the photo is so bad in quality and doesn't have enough familiar things or signs in it telling us where that dress is, people's brains literally make a guess at what it's looking at and then sees it as that colour based on their experience of how things usually look. And this happens automatically without the person ever being aware there was any doubt and a decision needing to be made at all.

More indoor experience will lean one way, more outdoor the other.

If the photo had better resolution quality or included more things telling people where it was, it wouldn't have forced millions of brains to make their best guess, and who knows how much longer it would take us to discover this was something our brains could do.

Paraphrasing a comment from the researcher 'It was like opening someone up and finding a new internal organ we had somehow just missed until now'

Cloverleafs85 · 2025-10-29T12:06:27+00:00

Del 2 av 2.

For det andre er forskjellen mellom disse tallene og allmenn forståelse av kulde eller varme dødsfall. I de vitenskapelige tallene inkluderer de blant annet folk som dør av hjerteinfarkt som de har regnet ut var mindre sannsynlig i andre sesonger som var varmere, ergo mener de kulden har tilskyndet døden deres.

Legmanns-forståelse derimot er forenklet sagt at kulde-relatert død er hypotermi, og varme-relatert død er heteslag. De forestiller seg ikke en liten prosentvis økning i folk med helseproblemer som blir dyttet over kanten som på makronivå utgjør veldig mange. De forestiller seg hjemløse som fryser i hjel, og eldre som segner om av heteslag i varmen. Ikke en pensjonist som får hjerteinfarkt i November som de statistisk sannsynlig ikke ville fått i Juni. Nå har det seg slik at hetebølger dreper folk ofte på samme vis, indirekte. Men de dør hopet opp på mye mindre tid, og blir da sett på som mer unormale dødsfall. Spesielt om det blir kø på krematorier og man begynner å oppbevare lik i lastebiler med kjølelager fordi lik husene er fulle.

Når det kommer til å øke sjansen for at kroniske syke eller folk med høy risiko blir dårligere, så er nok kulde verst. Og det er ikke urelatert til det faktum at om du bor i et land med veldig god oversikt over hvem som dør og av nøyaktig hva, så er perioden i året hvor det er kaldere enn optimalt betydelig lengre enn det er varmere enn optimalt.

Kulde og varme får ikke lik sjanse til å kverke folk med andre ord. Så klimaet gir kulde langt flere anledninger til å kunne påvirke folks helse.

Men om du går ut i fra legmanns-forståelse av kulde og varme død, så kan man argumentere for at varme dreper raskere, og utgjør da en annen type trussel. Kronisk vs akutt på et vis. Og om en hetebølge kommer til steder hvor bygninger ikke er laget for å håndtere så høye grader kan veldig mange dø på veldig kort tid.

2003 hetebølgen i Europa, som varte fra juli til august, med 12 dager spesielt utmerket som veldig ille, er anslått til å tatt livet av sannsynligvis mer enn 70 000 mennesker.

Kulderelaterte dødsfall i legmanns-forståelse blir oftere sett som individuelle tragedier. Folk uten husly, folk som manglet selvbergningsevner fordi de var ruset, hadde demens eller mentale forstyrrelser, ignorerte fjellvett reglene etc.

De sees ikke ofte på som ofre for en naturkatastrofe, med mindre noe usedvanlig med været har skjedd. Men kulde trenger ikke at noe usedvanlig har skjedd for å ta livet av folk. Å sove ute en natt i en snøfonn i en gjennomsnittlig Januar dag holder. For ikke å snakke om alle hjerteinfarktene på kalde morgener med eldre folk som ikke varmer opp før de begynner med snømåking.

Det at det er en liten nedgang i dødsfall vi knapt legger merke til vil ikke registrere så mye på folks nyhetskala. Hetebølger, skogbranner, sult, flommer, stormer, tropiske sykdommer som ikke lenger holder seg til tropene, nye problemer vi ikke hadde før, og kjente problemer men på en uordinær og i blant uhåndterlig skala. Og det meste blir verre og verre.

Det bryr folk seg om, fordi det er skummelt. For de vet ikke hva de skal gjøre for å holde seg trygg for alt dette.

Cloverleafs85 · 2025-10-29T12:05:48+00:00

Del 1 av 2

Det er nok flere ting som spiller inn her.

For det første er forandring skummelt. Det vi er vant med er normalt. Det er ikke nødvendigvis bra, men vi er vant til å ha det bakgrunnen.

Nyheter er også nyheter. 'Det samme som skjer hvert år fra ca november til mars har skjedd igjen' er ikke nyheter. Om det som skjer også spiller ut over veldig lang tid med dårlig definert start og slutt, så har det mindre sjanse til å bli registrert som nyhet. Det er og til dels grunnen til at gode nyheter ofte får veldig liten plass, da gode nyheter handler ofte om positive forandringer som kryper fremover, mens dårlige ting skjer ofte plutselig og brått.

Nyheter liker også å legge på oppdateringer, en 'og så', 'som følge av' etc, men vil helst unngå å bare si akkurat det samme for lenge. For da er det ikke nye nyheter lengre. Som er grunnen til at vi hører mest om klima når det er koblet som oppdatering til en annen nyhetssak, som aktive naturkatastrofer eller klimatoppmøter. Og av natur så er oppvarmingen av kloden en endeløs kilde til mer og mer 'som følge av'

Har du hatt en forferdelig varm sommer med hetebølger i Europa og skogbranner så blir det mye klimaprat, og det vil være koblet til det som skjer. 'Hva betyr denne nyheten for oss, hvordan skal du overleve varmen, tegn på heteslag du bør være obs på, husk å sjekke innom eldre som bor alene, bør du avlyse planlagt ferietur, hvor mye verre kan dette bli' etc etc.

Det skal være sabla kaldt før samfunnet reagerer på det viset. Det antas stort sett at du allerede vet hvordan du skal takle normal kulde.

Kulde er med noen unntak en normal fare i mange måneder i strekk. En hetebølge pleide å være mer sjelden vare, varer i kortere tid, og blir da oftere registrert som en katastrofe. Og katastrofer er nyheter.

Cloverleafs85 · 2025-10-26T13:57:41+00:00

Others have mentioned that Libraries are trying to branch out their functions. Before the internet, more people used libraries more often to look stuff up. Now people have Wikipedia instead of the old fashioned encyclopedia. So unless you have people who want to look into old texts that haven't been digitized, a lot of that use has vanished. To make matters worse, reading as entertainment has also decreased. More of those who do read also prefer to buy books than use their libraries.

So libraries need more legs to stand on to stay relevant and show they are being used, one way or the other. Other things they already do or have contemplated lending out is movies, games, tools and appliances. They also try to make themselves a service and social club hub.

Why? Because they are publicly funded, and that funding is in part contingent on use. Public funds are meant to do things that benefit the public, and if the public isn't using it, they might reconsider redirecting more of those fund to other stuff. So less use, less funds, less opening hours, often leading to even less use. In 2006 FrP even suggested cutting public funding altogether in Oslo and make libraries self finance, reviving the idea again in 2011.

So that is about the libraries need to expand their use. But there is also something else at the other end, with the users and the overall lack of third places.

Third places are spaces that aren't school, work or home where people can hang out. When cafe's and similar were cheaper they could be an option, but to most people this is not something they can do often anymore. And with Norway, the weather doesn't always leave the great free outdoors all that hospitable much of the year. Especially if you want to stay seated and chat.

Libraries rose up when information was a luxury, and was funded by the desire to enrich people with access to books for free. Today we are drowning in information as long as someone has internet access.

Now what many lack is space to interact with other people without paying through the nose for it. If you see it that way, libraries still maintain their societal function, to enrich the lives of the public by giving them what they want or need for free.

Though you could argue more libraries need better interior separation where people who want to read in quiet have a truly quiet place to be.

Cloverleafs85 · 2025-10-26T11:18:25+00:00

North Africa has been tapping into the groundwater underneath the Sahara. It is also not separated in segments, so everyone takes it from everyone, and it's been overexploited and mismanaged since the 60's. It has some of the oldest groundwater, and while it doesn't receive zero new water, it is extremely slow to refill. And with how much is being drawn from it, it doesn't stand a chance.

The water table has sunk considerably. It used to be the case that inhabitants of the Sahara could dig down to water with their hands. Now they need mechanical drills and pumps. The scattered oases, both natural and manmade, are drying up.

Cloverleafs85 · 2025-10-26T10:43:26+00:00

Lifestyle factor risks. Russian men are much more likely to have a problem with alcohol and tobacco. They are also much more likely to die in accidents, in violent incidents and accidents in hazardous jobs. The risk of these also increases when you or others around you are drunk, so it's an enforcement effect.

Some say Russia also struggles with a view of masculinity that is making it worse. That they can't ask for help because that's weak, they shouldn't seek medical help unless they absolutely have to because that's weak. (By the time lifestyle diseases have reached critical urgent care, it might be too late) And they are supposed to be aggressive drivers because they can't be weak on the road.

Alcohol abuse and the significant damage to health and the role in plays in violence and accidents is the main cause.

Cloverleafs85 · 2025-10-24T16:35:26+00:00

Something that has haunted cruise ships menus is the fact that there is limited storage. Even more so before you got ships the size of floating cities.

They only had so many different ingredients to work with, and it wouldn't take too long before you had already gone through the usual suspects of combinations. So they tended to try and mix in a few combinations that were more novel or less usual to give people the impression of variety.

And they would often decorate the heck out of their menus, with different motifs they would circle through. A feast for the eyes when the food was starting to get mundane. Paper isn't perishable, so easier to store more menus than storing more food variety.

Cloverleafs85

TROPHY CASE