Is it really that simple though? Aren’t there cases where if those same people would otherwise be unemployed, society might be better off having the perks of that business’ existance, and subsidizing those workers up to a living wage using tax $?
In the case of this style of korean soy sauce, it is actually fungal enzymes from molds that colonized the meju slowly breaking down the proteins and starches over time, whilst being protected from outside forces by high salinity water. I realize you said "et al." but I couldn't help myself. There's very little bacterial activity going on in there.
Eh, it depends what you mean by traditional. Ramen is "traditional" in japan, but it was invented in the early 1900s. Similarly, since wheat wasn't commonly imported into japan prior to the 1800s, most actually old tradition recipes didn't contain wheat either.
I didn’t read the entire article and i am not a physician.
That said, your point #2 sounds incorrect - aspartame doesn’t cause atherosclerosis, it aggravates atherosclerosis. The key difference there as it relates to type 2 diabetes patients is that presumably if they had atherosclerosis as an existing condition, they would qualify for a glp-1 with cvd benefits, and not be on sulfonylureas in the first place.
Preventing the north korean regime from having the funds to grow its military presence seems like a fair use of economic sanctions to me - sadly, even if there is an economic cost to its people.
I really doubt that worked, given that North Korea does most of its trade with China and Russia, who don't participate in the sanctions. Besides, they already have nukes and the ability to launch them over the ocean. The military presence has grown as much as the regime needs it to with the sanctions, so there's no point to keeping them anymore.
North Korea has roughly the equal third largest standing army in the world. North Korea has nuclear weapons. What exactly have we prevented?
My point is that economic sanctions never work against enemies. They only work against allies. Apartheid South Africa is the example that springs to mind.
Take the economic sanctions against Russia after it's unjustifiable invasion of Ukraine. What have they done exactly? Russia is now basically a war economy. It still has energy exports because there's always a market for that.
I don’t get why you’re trying to characterize NKs military as strong when it is objectively not so. The goal for stability in the region is for SK to have a stronger military. If we want to look at whether sancions have progressed that goal, then we would need to evaluate the relative strength of the two since the time sanctions went into place. How large of a standing army they have is not your kpi
TBH NK special case in that they make sanctions bite extra hard out of (Juche) policy. They're in prime geography to evade/smuggle all they want. IMO pretty good illustration on the maximum limits of US sanctions - i.e. countries with enough industrial base with max sanctions and tying their own hands can still concentrate enough resources to nuclearize and build icbms. Reality is NK nuclearization threatens US regional security architecture and likely reached stretch goal of penetrating CONUS GMD, i.e. NK basically the only shit tier country that can on paper nuke US.
Conventionally, now that we're in era of cheap drone warfare, harder to extrapolate NK/SK force disparity anymore. Risks no longer limited to artillery a few dozen km south of DMZ. NK building loitering munitions that can cover entirity of SK - SK has no longer have even modest strategic depth to hide high end hardware unlike few years ago. Ditto with Iran being able to credibly hit Israel. But that's more factor of tech proliferation.
I thought the context of the previous response was that sanctions do nothing to the regime i.e. in terms of strengthening, weakening, or getting rid of. The North korean dictatorship remains in place so that is agreeable. However, North korean military presence (seen as distinct from the regime presence) has seemingly faltered dramatically.
That chart does not at all show that it follows South Korea! It is massively behind and has suffered a debilitating famine in the 90s. That on top of the spurious data collecting in North Korea that probably skews those numbers.
The people against sanctions want countries around the world to be forced to trade with North Korea. We don't have to be forced to trade with anyone. Free trade is earned, not a right for all the dictators of the world.
The way US sanctions against countries work is when we sanction a country, we also sanction any other country or entity or person who passes money or goods in return for money or goods from the targeted country.
It's not simply "We've decided to not buy and sell goods from a certain country."
What really happens with US sanctions is the guys we sanction all decide to band together with each other and to oppose and hate America, and eventually withdraw from using the US Dollar, reducing the US's influence. That may be good or it may be bad but its definitely not what the US has in mind when it sanctions a country.
By "a period in the nineties", you mean "since the nineties", right? So basically for the past 35 years North Korea has been heavily lagging in life expectancy.
Another way to put that is it's been 75 years since Korea split, and half that time North Korea has been much worse than south Korea.
Let's not even get into what that chart would look like if humanitarian aid wasn't shipped during those famines.
In that chart I see one clearly identifiable famine, after which the life expectancy started rising again. Can you perhaps take a copy and mark out the other famines?
North Korea infamously refuses foreign aid, do you have a source that describes more in detail the aid you're referring to?
Life expectancy in the northern portion of Korea was higher than in the southern portion up until the point the US bombed 2/3 of all buildings in the northern portion.
The context of this discussion is that regardless of who is in office, there is an overspending problem. So it doesn’t exactly bear itself worth repeating here.
Definitely not paranoia. Near constant respiratory infections are par for the course with grade school aged children. You typically don’t call or visit the pediatrician unless things are especially bad or unusual.
They only offer to rebook you on a flight in their own fleet though. E.g. i have been canceled on united due to “bad weather” halfway through a segment and was made to wait 4 days until the next united flight (there was a huge backlog). Instead, since i was stranded and absolutely needed to get to my destination, i had to buy a delta flight leaving that same night for $700 more than market value. United refused to compensate me for this. It’s bullshit.
Edit: oh by the way, i didn’t get refunded for the segment that flew me across the nation just to stand me in denver. The refund was prorated And only counted for the second segment.
Anyone who doesn’t think airlines need more regulations on cancellations and refunds clearly hasn’t flown regularly.
If you complain hard enough and get lucky you can get rebooked on a different airline, but it's certainly consistent or mandated. I think I've only had it once as someone who flies quite a bit.
> In fact, life expectancy is lower in the US than it is in, even the UK, at every income level. So for some level of medical care you may actually do better outside.
This only makes sense if one assumes a society’s medical care is the main driver of its population’s life expectancy rating.
