The country is having a civil war for the last 60 years and was under sanctions until something like 2015. What else would anybody expect to be happening besides this, whoring in nearby Thailand and genociding minorities?
The scam centers started around 2017. They are stared in collaboration with BFG which is under command of Military.
60 year cilvil war is nothing compare to current Revoultionary war where due to military coup and 90% of people are against Military and youth formed alliances called PDF , and getting arms , miltiary training , fighting back to restore the country's democracy and rule of law.
But during that , Rule of Law is totally diminished and we are under rise of crime. The military regime allow the scams center to free roam and let the thugs to do what they want to create unrest.
It wasn't sunshine and rainbows before 2017 either, right? I lived across the mountain ridge and saw your compatriots working in Thailand and I wish your country all the best. Nobody deserves such fate.
In major cities (Yangon , Madalay , Naypyidaw) , economly was very qucikly developing. from 2010 to 2019 was golden years. Even during covid we are progressing nicely , then after 2021 Coup happened and everything goes south. Our freedom , human rights and rule of law taken away within a day by a blood thirsty , greedy , military dictator.
Now PDFs (the people's defense force) and Ethnic armies fighting back to regain the country . We don't have any support from foreign power but funded fully by the people of myanmar - we regain about 60% of the country but Major cities are far from being touched.
Meanwhile - the Junta (the military in control of the country) and Scam gangs are collaborating , exporting and manufacturing drugs , kidnapping girls and selling them to China as sex slaves , kidnapping boys and using as meat-shield at frontline or sold for Organ harvesting. Appointing local thugs and gangs members , giving guns letting them run amok to create unrest and attack PDF .
Everything become a nightmare - many of talents had moved out side of country and staying in Thailand/Singapore.
Very few places on earth are like that. Even in Europe's dense cities there are a lot of cars, get outside of that and there is no hope of an alternative. Though Europe is somewhat likely to have a bar within walking distance of your house, but a lot of people in Europe drive to whatever bar they drink in at least sometime.
Most of the world's public transportation sees themselves as a way to get to work and so parties which happen off hours in places hard for transport to reach get bad or no service.
East Asia has lots of highly walkable cities with great public transit -- even a few you might not have heard of. Not just Tokyo, Seoul, Shanghai, Beijing but also Shenzhen, Chongqing, and Hangzhou to name a few.
Sure, there are small areas like that (which are dense areas meaning a lot of people live there), but they are still a minority. Even within those cities there are places that are more walkable than others.
> Unless we're arguing that people simply didn't socialize before cars existed.
No, the argument is that cars changed how society is physically structured, to the point where society at large is designed to center car-based transportation.
In many countries - including the US and most of Europe - this is transparently true.
Not really? Yes there are a lot of cars in EU cities, but young people are not driving them - they use combination of walking, biking and public transport.
Parties are where people live and in center - public transport gets you there. Using public transport to get from bar or home party is quite normal.
> The Americas had no horses before Europeans brought them.
> Long since debunked
I mean, the linked article says horses were introduced in the 1600s (brought by Europeans), and then spread throughout the Americas without requiring further European distribution.
Horses in North America are a weird one. I believe the current thinking is that horses started in North America, migrated to Asia, then the population died off after the continents split. So there were horses in the Americas prior to the Europeans, but also potentially before humans.
Humans and horses probably did that thing where you're looking for someone and you go to where they are then they go to where you are and you both miss eachother.
And then died out, before Cortes brought them back to the continent in 1519. Native Americans then discovered the horses before they ran into the Europeans and began spreading them across the country.
> Horses evolved in the Americas around four million years ago, but by about 10,000 years ago, they had mostly disappeared from the fossil record, per the Conversation. Spanish settlers likely first brought horses back to the Americas in 1519, when Hernán Cortés arrived on the continent in Mexico. Per the new paper, Indigenous peoples then transported horses north along trade networks.
Depends what your community needs. I'm part of a dance group that only needs to communicate events, so most communication happens by email (BCC from organizer to everyone). Then, anything more complicated happens in-person or through other channels.
This should be about what you want in your career now, and not about your age. Once you can clearly answer the first question, it will be easy to find the right place.
That actually distills it down pretty well. What's your financial position? What do you want/need your financial position to be once you (maybe, largely) stop collecting a paycheck? Are you OK with not working for a company vs. maybe doing some stuff on the side?
Especially once you've thought about your finances, your horizons may open up a lot. I know people who largely retired in their 40s and that may be for you or may be hell.
Neither desire or need was mentioned, only want, which addresses both desire and need. If financial security is what the OP wants, the parent comment already has him covered.
Per the dictionary, want is defined as: "ought, should, or need to do something." That which you ought, need, or should do is not necessarily what you desire. As it relates the conversation, financial stability is not likely a desire in and of itself, but it may be what you need.
Yes, words often mean more than one thing. "want" has several commonly used meanings, not to mention that the author can define it however he pleases on the spot.
In context, "desire" is defined as what one would prefer to do absent of any financial constraints. With the stated acceptance of reality, one can want financial independence out of need without it being their desire (per the given definition).
It may be true that some definitions of "want" and "desire" prevent coherent differentiation, but as we established, and you willingly agreed, words do allow for more than one meaning...
I cannot think of a single case where the words "want" and "desire" are not interchangeable.
One might connote a greater or lesser longing or preference in a given context, but I think that will also vary.
To the point:
> one can want financial independence out of need without it being their desire (per the given definition).
This sentence works equally well with the words swapped.
...
Anyway, this is not an interesting diversion. It was intended to point out that the semantics are not worth debating. Hopefully it will be disconnected from the thread and not waste anyone else's time.
By strict application of the most common use, that is effectively true. But in that case needing financial independence before seeking more lofty careers goals is a desire like any other. The premise introduced in the first reply is a false premise if you want to take that angle.
However, to do so shows a gross misunderstanding of the English language. Meanings are not set in stone like that. Meaning is fluid and can change with context. Said reply defines "desire" to exclude financial concerns, but maintains "want" in the original sense. The intent of the comment is quite clear. It fails by false assumption.
With that contextual defining of "desire', these words are no longer interchangeable. "Want" includes the case where one wants financial independence, while "desire" is defined, in context, to exclude wanting financial independence.
* The Death and Life of Great American Cities by Jane Jacobs. Classic urbanist book that changed the way I see my city, and elegantly described so many things I didn't know I knew.
* A Psalm for the Wild-Built by Becky Chambers. Short, beautiful sci-fi story.
* The first four Dune books by Frank Herbert, so full of intrigue.
Even if kei trucks imported from Japan perform poorly in crash tests, they demonstrate that there is a market for smaller, more utilitarian trucks in North America -- a market that could be filled with something a little bit bigger perhaps and with more safety features.
Yeah, they're in current production, but in the US we can only really import them for general use if they're 25 years or more old. Newer than that and it needs to meet the US Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS), and probably also the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) standards too. So everything we see tends to be fairly old.
Some states make it pretty hard to register these vehicles too, you don't see very many kei trucks in California because they're too hard to register; import shops exist in California, but tend to sell to drivers in other states.
A safe, air conditioned kei truck would be great, but I can’t imagine a small truck in America given the current gigantic car culture. Sedans are too small for the American market now, let alone subcompact cars which are already gone.
But they are not banned. If A is banned because it's small, but B is not banned despite being smaller than A, then the logic doesn't support banning of A. Change small for dangerous, if you want.
Problem with banning B (bikes, to not get lost) is that even SUVs are small and fragile to big trucks. Should all vehicles in the road be banned due to its size, except the biggest trucks?
The problem is that banning key cars for their size or fragility is logically inconsistent. Banning now smaller vehicles like motorcycles and bikes is a patch to wrong logic. This is just targeting a specific kind of car because some reason that the regulator doesn't want to disclose.
You didn't say anything about "people want" or "people don't want".
> How can a car be to small for your streets when there are bikes and whatever also driving around?
Can also be presented as: if bikes are driving on roads, cars can't be too small for roads (because they are bigger than bikes).
So, bikes being on streets doesn't mean they are big enough for roads. Your whole sentence is "non sequitur". What I want to say: small cars can be too small for USA roads independently of bikes being too small for USA roads. People wanting to drive small cars or bikes is also independent and being allowed to is also pretty much independent.
Now, my opinion: I think you should be allowed to drive small cars, I have a small car too (and a bike), but existing usage of roads in USA by increasingly big cars makes it increasingly unsafe (in USA). I agree that USA should do something about bigger and bigger cars, but I have no idea what and it's not very probable that I will ever drive a car or a bike in a big city in USA, so you can safely ignore my opinion and drive whatever you like.
I think I get what you mean. Never been to the U.S. and was just really surprised about this sentiment.
Some people drive tiny single seat cars here in Europe and I never considered that particular dangerous for them or anyone next to the relative way bigger cars that are common.
I mean that sedans are too small for American tastes. Automakers are phasing out sedans like they phased out subcompacts because people don't buy them. Americans basically buy crossovers at a minimum now.
I see tiny Fiats, Volkswagen beetles, Smart Cars, and other very small vehicles all the time. I live in a rural area filled with lifted pickups.
Please don't make the mistake of thinking that "there's a trend toward larger vehicles, which can make smaller vehicles somewhat less safe" means "no one is buying or selling anything smaller than an F-150".
Kei trucks have a much longer bed than the Maverick. About 2m on a Kei truck vs. 1.37m on a Maverick. The sides of the bed can also be lowered in addition to the rear gate, which is incredibly useful for loading/unloading.
The Maverick is a cool truck, but feels more like a passenger car that can do light truck duty when needed. Whereas the a kei truck is really all about utility.
