Why has communism not destroyed that country?

Could it perhaps be the US embargo has been more effective at destroying that island? The US does over $150 billion in trade with Vietnam.

Your video link starts '¿Quien financió la revolución?'. Who funded the repressive dictatorship of Fulgencio Batista, allowing fertile soils for the seeds of socialism to grow?

Hint: The US seems to prefer funding repressive dictatorships, so long as they support US economic and military interest over the interests of the people in their country. "Before the revolution, U.S. and other foreign investors dominated the Cuban economy, controlling 75% of arable land, 90% of essential services, and 40% of sugar production.", quoting https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuba.

"The corruption of the Government, the brutality of the police, the government's indifference to the needs of the people for education, medical care, housing, for social justice and economic justice ... is an open invitation to revolution." wrote Schlesinger, quoting https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fulgencio_Batista .

Then the US, angry that its money maker (and playground for the rich) got taken away, decided take a moral high ground it didn't have before [1] and embargo Cuba.

Does the video address these parts of Cuba's complicated history?

[1] Fun story. I have relatives who lived in Cuba and left for Florida when Castro came to power. One was my aunt. She took a bus in the Tampa area in the early 1960s. A black person came on the bus. My aunt moved to the side to make room for the black person to sit. She was looked at funny, and the black person went to the back of the bus. Cuba under Batista didn't have American segregation laws. "Moral high ground" my ass.

The moral high ground would send oil to Cuba as humanitarian aid, as Mexico wants to do.

It did. The Communist takeover in the North lead to mass starvation deaths and a flood of refugees to the South. The Communist takeover in the South lead to another mass starvation and lots of hunger deaths.

Because the US seems to be doing a lot of trade with a communist country which calls itself Vietnam. And that country seems to be in rather better shape than Cuba, with the biggest difference the US embargo on the latter.

The Cubans who recently died because there's no power for their ventilators didn't die because of Communism, but because the US is preventing oil from getting to the country. The US could do the same to Haiti, or the Bahamas, or Jamaica. Gunboat diplomacy is back on the menu.

I assume it's because the land is cheaper.

Which means IKEA's business model depends on urban sprawl.

Which might be good for profits, but isn't good for cities.

The last couple of times I bought furniture I walked about 1.5 miles to the furniture shop, and had them deliver, so it's not like furniture shops require lots of parking to exist.

For that matter, my IKEA shopping is rarely for furniture, and when it is, I have them deliver.

Edit: now that I think about it, every time I bought furniture, I had them deliver. I've never owned a car big enough to carry a bed, couch, patio seating, and the like. Sure, flat pack helps, but I'm not going to buy a car based around the rare need to buy something big when I can pay for delivery.

> descramble a scrambled work, to decrypt an encrypted work, or otherwise to avoid, bypass, remove, deactivate, or impair a technological measure, without the authority of the copyright owner

where

> a technological measure “effectively controls access to a work” if the measure, in the ordinary course of its operation, requires the application of information, or a process or a treatment, with the authority of the copyright owner, to gain access to the work.

A sticker doesn't count as a "technological measure".

The sage elders suggested that making the language harder to change (cough Python) is more likely to result in a single widely used dialect, with the differences at the library level rather than in language/macro level.

Otherwise there could not be states with two-party/all-party consent requirements for making an recording.

I think requiring all-party consent for facial recognition would not have 1st amendment issues.

Implementation details and effectiveness are, of course, very different issues.

The solution to this form of elitism was not to make everyone speak RP, but to encourage non-RP accents, which is more common in the modern BBC.

Your comment seems elitist by encouraging the use of artifice to fit better into an elitist world, rather than breaking down elitism.

> Coffee consumption was more often associated with benefit than harm for a range of health outcomes across exposures including high versus low, any versus none, and one extra cup a day. There was evidence of a non-linear association between consumption and some outcomes, with summary estimates indicating largest relative risk reduction at intakes of three to four cups a day versus none, including all cause mortality (relative risk 0.83, 95% confidence interval 0.83 to 0.88), cardiovascular mortality (0.81, 0.72 to 0.90), and cardiovascular disease (0.85, 0.80 to 0.90). High versus low consumption was associated with an 18% lower risk of incident cancer (0.82, 0.74 to 0.89). Consumption was also associated with a lower risk of several specific cancers and neurological, metabolic, and liver conditions. Harmful associations were largely nullified by adequate adjustment for smoking, except in pregnancy, where high versus low/no consumption was associated with low birth weight (odds ratio 1.31, 95% confidence interval 1.03 to 1.67), preterm birth in the first (1.22, 1.00 to 1.49) and second (1.12, 1.02 to 1.22) trimester, and pregnancy loss (1.46, 1.06 to 1.99). There was also an association between coffee drinking and risk of fracture in women but not in men.

> Conclusion Coffee consumption seems generally safe within usual levels of intake, with summary estimates indicating largest risk reduction for various health outcomes at three to four cups a day, and more likely to benefit health than harm.

When I'm looking for medical advice, I want that advice to list things like "coffee drinking might not be safe during pregnancy".

Furthermore, the statement 'Heavy consumption (6+ cups) can lead to anxiety, insomnia ...' assumes caffeinated coffee, yes? The paper I linked to also discusses decaffeinated coffee, eg:

> High versus low intake of decaffeinated coffee was also associated with lower all cause mortality, with summary estimates indicating largest benefit at three cups a day (0.83, 0.85 to 0.89)28 in a non-linear dose-response analysis. ...

> Coffee consumption was consistently associated with a lower risk of Parkinson’s disease, even after adjustment for smoking, and across all categories of exposure.22 76 77 Decaffeinated coffee was associated with a lower risk of Parkinson’s disease, which did not reach significance. ...

> there were no convincing harmful associations between decaffeinated coffee and any health outcome.

That nuance seems important.

Also note that this paper is incomplete as it investigated defined health outcomes, not physiological outcomes like anxiety. There are plenty more papers, like https://academic.oup.com/eurheartj/article/46/8/749/7928425?... , which considers the time that people drink coffee, also discusses decaffeinated coffee, and highlights the uncertainty about the effect of heavy coffee drinking.

I don't see why I should care to ask an AI when it's so easy to find well-written research results which are far more likely to cover relevant edge cases.

> DAS REDES SOCIAIS

> Art. 24. No âmbito de seus serviços, os provedores de produtos ou serviços direcionados a crianças e a adolescentes ou de acesso provável por eles deverão garantir que usuários ou contas de crianças e de adolescentes de até 16 (dezesseis) anos de idade estejam vinculados ao usuário ou à conta de um de seus responsáveis legais.

So if I have it right, 'providers of products or services targeted at children and adolescents or likely access by them'.

I think that means the Mastodon instance I'm on, with ~50 users (all adults, that I can tell) does not count, right?

I remember the BBS days back in the 1980s when the BBS admin called you up to verify adult status.

[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47387548

The definition of "match" is complicated, and not just for issues like partial fingerprints and blurring. The FBI says they had a "100 percent match" in the Mayfield case. The judge says this assessment was "fabricated and concocted by the FBI and DOJ".

Or from https://www.science.org/content/article/forensic-experts-bia... published in 2022:

"When police retrieve a print from a crime scene, they consult an FBI computer database containing millions of fingerprints and receive several possible matches, in order of the most likely possibilities. Dror found that experts were likely to pick “matches” near the top of the list even after he had scrambled their order, perhaps because of the subconscious tendency to overly trust computer technology.

“People would say to me fingerprints don’t lie,” Dror says. “And I would say yes, but it’s also true that fingerprints don’t speak. It’s the human examiner who makes the judgment, and humans are fallible.”"

For my undergrad the CRC math handbook was enough.