> Thanks to market reforms and the resulting economic growth, child mortality in Bangladesh has plummeted.
I agree that market reforms have been great for most countries that adopt it, provided they have stable and competent institutions.
However, it doesn't make sense to attribute decrease in child mortality to "market reforms". Cuba, Russia/USSR, North Korea all have seen huge declines in child mortality since 1960.
This is Mamdani’s worst idea. Margins on most essential goods in grocery stores is incredibly low, sometimes it’s a loss leader. Does anyone know of any solid economic rationale for this move?
The underlying theory is to put these stores in areas that otherwise lack grocery store access, meaning they won’t compete with existing stores for small margins. Running at a (moderate) loss would also be politically acceptable; the city runs a lot of things at a loss for civic purposes and fills the gaps with taxes.
(This is the theory, the practice will be challenged by NYC’s ability to acquire land in neighborhoods that are underserved by groceries and develop a supply chain for these stores. This will be harder, but I personally don’t vote for mayors to only have easy problems to solve.)
But if you're running a pilot, wouldn't you want it near some other store to see what the impact on their business actually is? Running a pilot in the middle of nowhere would say nothing about how it impacts other local stores. You'd end up having to run another pilot to answer that question.
> Running a pilot in the middle of nowhere would say nothing about how it impacts other local stores.
I disagree. They could still run the pilot "in the middle of nowhere" or in a food desert and still measure the impact on the nearest grocery stores. Given that's what they want to do long-term, I think that's the configuration they should be studying.
Ultimately they want to put the stores where hungry people need food and cannot afford to eat. Food deserts are not defined as a lack of all food sources, but a lack of affordable, accessible food sources. Therefore it's still important to assess the impact of placing it nearby other existing food sources.
Why wouldn't you want to discover whether and to what degree that actually negatively impacts the existing store?
Apple does much of their own mapping but they also rely quite a bit on external data sources, whichever one of those they use probably dropped the data for one reason or another.
They might genuinely not exist any more. The world's attention was heavily distracted by the campaign in Iran and the Hormuz strait while Israel never stopped doing their ...stuff... in Lebanon.
"The Israeli military has demolished entire villages as part of its invasion of south Lebanon, rigging homes with explosives and razing them to the ground in massive remote detonations."
"The demolitions came after Israel’s minister of defence, Israel Katz, called for the destruction of “all houses” in border villages “in accordance with the model used in Rafah and Beit Hanoun in Gaza” to stop threats to communities in northern Israel. The Israeli military destroyed 90% of homes in Rafah, in south Gaza."
This kind of innuendo adds nothing of value to the conversation. Either say what you intend to say, or just don't post. The coy "I know something but can't say it" is silly and just sounds like you have a persecution complex.
he was referring to the famous DNA research, mentioned in this Israeli newspaper:
Scientists Discover Gene That Predisposes Ashkenazi Jews to Schizophrenia
Variations of the DNST3 gene make Ashkenazi Jews 40 percent more likely to develop schizophrenia and similar diseases.
No. Jews having 40% higher chances of schizophrenia in no way justifies the view that most Jews are lunatics. It’s a minuscule chance to begin with. Saying “most Jews are lunatics” is just antisemitic.
You are ignoring the elephant in the room: the media environment that artifically inflames every single incident that involes a jew, no matter how small. This creates a fake perseption that if something bad happens to a jew in australia, that means that every single one of them around the world is in danger.
Similar to how school shootings in US are inflated to the point that every school has to create measures to defend against an active shooter.
Do this poisonous media tactice over decades and inflate the danger and you will make people pretty nervous and trip them over the edge
Entire segments of the podcast sphere are making their money talking about these so-called unspeakable subjects. Why don't you share what you really think.
There's a very narrow and vanishing window of opportunity left to end-up with anything other than a total disaster, and even in that case I'm not holding my breath for the quality of life for the next 5 years. In the long-term, it's harder to predict than either side wants to admit.
If you need a hint, just take a look at what this regime did in Syria (600k dead and 12 years of internal war), in Gaza and Palestine (75k dead), in Iraq, Lebanon, Yemen, and more. Most recently, this January in Iran with 40k dead. You see mullahs' footprints everywhere there is a humanitarian disaster, and I'm not optimistic about the future of Iran, in either case. These are not the kind of people that let go easily, they have a cataclysmic view of the world. They (literally) gave a "Passport to Heaven" to their fighters (Assad supporters) in Syria, and those very same fighters are chanting pro-regime songs (if you can even call it that) every night at every square and major street in the city.
As an Iranian, we saw these [death] figures as an abstract concept prior to these recent events. We (the ordinary citizens) heard about Yemen and the massacre in Syria, we "sympathized," and that was it. It wasn't until this January that it finally hit me, that 40k people dying is like 15 Tienanmen squares happening at once, or 5 times the D-Day battles casualties. And it's chilling to think about what the future will look like, knowing that this is only the beginning and we are choosing between "terrible" and "much worse."
Tel Aviv perhaps? Wartime is the worst time to stage a revolutionary for anyone,specifically because its a induces a state of emergency, and any activities can be construed as aiding the enemy.
That sounds brutal, and I’m sure there were tons of abuses by security forces during the protests, but I am a bit skeptical of Iran International as a source:
Iran under the Shah was hardly a bastion of liberty:
“In a 1976 document, Amnesty International detailed some of SAVAK's torture practices and stated that the shah's regime was one of the worst human rights violators in the world.”
Some argue the excessive repression is what caused the reactionary backlash of the Islamic Revolution (which initially was also supported by liberal democratic and leftist parties as well).
One of my friends in Iran who was previously critical of the government is now highly supportive of them. I wonder how many other Iranians have become supporters of the government during this war.
I've heard the same from many Iranians I know. Western media presented the protests as an attempt to overthrow the order but it seems many protestors were simply calling for reform.
We don't have numbers after that but I find it hard to believe a large majority in a country with middling approval ratings would suddenly want to completely overthrow their leaders in just a few years.
Generally I agree; i doubt that there is a large contingent of Iranians in Iran who are cheering for bombing and complete collapse of their civilization. However it’s not out of the question that the approval of the government could have plummeted precipitously within a couple of years - there’s lots of precedent for that across the world (UK conservatives come to mind, George W Bush 2nd term as well)
Sure, absolutely. And I'm sure it did plummet. But Bush or the UK conservatives weren't overthrown in a nation-wide revolution. To get something like that you need massive widespread disapproval that's been going on for at least a decade. That just isn't the case in Iran. It's been a pretty middling approval rating for years
Frankly, you sound like an Iranian bot. It's obvious that the Iranian government's approval ratings are, at best, around 20%. Measuring government approval ratings in a country where there's no freedom of speech, no political freedom, and where criticizing the regime is subject to mass executions is simply stupid.
Just out of curiosity, according to your methodology, what's Kim Jong-un's approval rating among North Koreans? 99.98%?
> Frankly, you sound like an Iranian bot. It's obvious that the Iranian government's approval ratings are, at best, around 20%.
This is not at all obvious... I've only seen one poll that indicates such a low approval rating - it was from GAMAAN, which uses highly questionable polling techniques
1. reaching out to people on social media, then asking them to share the poll with their friends
2. Repeatedly asking the same people to take different polls, effectively polling the same sample over and over again.
3. Asking users of ONE VPN provider, which is hardly representative of Iranian population.
Even looking at their cross-tabs in their report shows how out-of-whack their sample was:
Only 13% of those polled were in lowest third of income.
53% of those polled where in top 40% of income.
Only 29.0% of those polled indicated religion was important in their life, compared to 69.4% from the World Values Survey. Hilariously, they use that as an indication that their poll is somehow more accurate than World Values Survey, Gallup, etc.
GAMAAN is also headed by Tony Blair, one of the most notorious interventionist Neo-cons of the past 30 years.
I trust Gallup way more than GAMAAN here.
> no freedom of speech, no political freedom, and where criticizing the regime is subject to mass executions is simply stupid.
Your view of day to day life in Iran seems clouded by propaganda. Try talking with someone who actually lives in Iran and ask them what they think.
I agree that market reforms have been great for most countries that adopt it, provided they have stable and competent institutions.
However, it doesn't make sense to attribute decrease in child mortality to "market reforms". Cuba, Russia/USSR, North Korea all have seen huge declines in child mortality since 1960.
https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SP.DYN.IMRT.IN?end=2006...
reply