China, the country was never a colony under British rule - perhaps you're thinking of the island leased to Britain, Hong Kong.
China did have interactions with Britain, disputes over trade, access, addictive drug running, gunboat diplomacy et al. but these usually fall under British Imperialism rather than British Colonialism.
I think that's the previous posters point. The OP argued that countries were better off in the long run with British colonialism than without. I think China vs India is the counter example.
I wouldn't count China as a third world country to compare to, so that's fair enough, but also China is only doing well because it coccooned some capitalism based on English common law and its derivatives, and a limited imitation of the liberal tradition thereof. Of course it's a facade, but it works well enough to lift them out of poverty.
India you should compare to India's trajectory had British rule not occurred.
Given generally we measure poverty by how many things Western countries have invented and built, and not look to India as the leading edge of development, it's not hard to deduce India's trajectory had it never met the West. Overwhelming caste system, low tech. Hitting a local maximum and never getting out of it. A bit like what the UK might've been had the Romans never colonised it.
In Poland, factories' light installations ran on non-standard voltage, so that, if you stole the lightbulb, it'd be useless in your household. Unfortunately, they couldn't figure out similar solution for toilet paper and many other household items.
As for motivation, beyond the obvious one, people also stole because many items were not available in stores (having a guy who has a connect on toilet paper was a thing back then), and also, since Communism in Poland was actually a Russian dictatorship, the idea was that if you steal from communist factories you're fighting the system and making it fall faster.
One of the first things to do on a fresh install is to disable the Web search results in Start menu search. There's a setting in the registry to do it.
For games, part of that mere „output” is 3d graphics, so replicating the internals of Direct 3D exactly right and getting the Linux GPU drivers to cooperate. That’s a hardcore task.
I have plenty of such scenes in my city still, but these people are usually either pensioners, or local unemployed drunks who have an entire day to fill. People with jobs don't hang outside, unless they're with their kids.
Putin is not a mad dictator ruling against everyone’s wishes. He’s a leader of a large establishment elite which shares his views and gets very rich. If you replace Putin, most likely outcome is his replacement will not be very different (and probably worse, since the country will be even more anti-Western after the assassination)
Nope. Putin _is_ a mad dictator completely disconnected from the realities of Russia. Just like Maduro in Venezuela. So if he's killed, nobody is going to be bothered by this except a few dozen of his closest allies.
Putin's regime is purely authoritarian ("information autocracy") it has _no_ ideology. Moreover, the government in Russia does everything it can to keep the population passive.
And before you ask, Iran was different because it's _not_ an authoritarian country. It's a full-blown totalitarian theocracy with an official ideology and the elites there actually _believe_ in their doctrine. They have a core of people who will die rather than betray it. And most importantly, they have actual institutions that can survive the death of individuals.
Quick google math says you get 6 tires from a barrel of oil vs roughly 20 gallons of gas. Unless EVs mean you change tires every 300 miles or so I think we're good.
My ICE vehicles go through many more pounds of gasoline than they do tires. A set of tires is ~100lbs of material. 50,000mi of gas on a 30mpg vehicle is 10,000lbs of gas.
With where the Trumpists want to take us, tires made out of carved stone will suffice. Non-EVs will be retrofitted with a hole in the floor for your feet.
Consequences would be nice, but actually forbidding it for the future would be enough. Obama promised to do it, but didn't, and everybody kind of forgot and moved on.
We sure did when Frank-Dodd was written by the legislative and then signed into law by the executive.
GP's comment is about the aftermath of 2008, entirely missing the fact that the legislative did in fact create laws which were signed by the executive and then later, in 2018, dismantled under a different administration.
reply