RunawayFixer

Yes, many times. Historically, it seems like the very strong empires first defeated themselves and once they were sufficiently weakened for outside forces to be able to threaten them ... they still kept being self sabotaged by their own elite who prioritized maneuvering against each other for temporary power/wealth grabs over working together to face the outside threats.

The late Roman empire has a bunch of good examples: blatant corruption, over taxation of the poor, many assassinations, sabotaging their peers that were trying to improve the situation, constant civil war, the battle that destroyed the military backbone of the western Roman empire was fought between romans, ... And all that while the empire was being torn apart by outside invasions.

Or a more recent example: the polish Lithuanian commonwealth had a paralyzed government thanks to corrupt elites with veto powers in their parliament of nobles (sejm) and only once the nation was mostly destroyed and the nation on the cusp of final destruction, did the sejm introduce some sensible new laws, but it was too late.

With smaller regional powers you can have cases like "they were in a golden age and had never been as powerful, but then the mongols appeared", but with hegemon empires the failure of their inner workings is always going to be instrumental in their own demise.

For the other nations in nato it would be for the best (imo obviously). Republican usa is not a reliable ally and the other nato nations have not all come to terms with that new reality yet. If the usa quits nato, then it instantly removes all doubt and the remaining nations of NATO can immediately start work on improving the alliance, instead of being stuck in limbo for a few more years while they're hoping that the usa will somehow magically unfuck itself.

The article/slideshow I linked is not a specific scientific study that was done in London, it's a summary/aggregate of other studies that are referenced at the end of the slideshow. It was a study summary made for London, but the science behind it is a lot more general.

I'm from Belgium and from my own personal experience, I find that well done low speed zones really do improve the flow of traffic. Cities in the Netherlands have been at it for probably over 2 decades, Antwerp has followed their example since about a decade and now other cities in Flanders are copying Antwerp's homework. When done well, it works really well and almost noone wants to go back to how it used to be. You're right in that coordinated traffic lights are a big part of why the traffic flows much better, but in congested streets, a lower speed is needed to keep that flow going.

In Belgium we also have a big example of how to not do street renewal/traffic improvement programs: Brussels.

The evidence of studies says that you are wrong.

Here are some key points from a study summary that was made for London: 20mph zones do not appear to worsen air quality and they dramatically reduce road danger. They also support a shift to walking and cycling, generate less traffic noise and reduce community severance. In 20mph zones vehicles move more smoothly with fewer accelerations and decelerations. This driving style produces fewer particulate emissions.

https://content.tfl.gov.uk/speed-emissions-and-health.pdf

I tried looking for it and I found a YouTube video of some Indian street vendor doing it, but iirc my old video had been of some British guy. There's more than one apparently.

The loss of sensitivity doesn't happen all at once, plenty of cooks and serving staff have much higher tolerances than non-cooks/waiters. I'd expect that this is at least partly from damaged nerves, but while they have reduced sensitivity, iirc then the British guy said that he had lost all sensation in his hands.

I've seen video of someone pulling stuff out of frying oil with his bare hands. This was made easy for him because all his nerve endings in his hands were dead because he had been putting them into frying oil, but still, I never would have believed anyone to do something that ... I don't know what to call it, callous maybe.

My bad for assuming wrong.

And yeah, sarcasm with just text doesn't work very well, got to add something for making obvious that it is sarcasm, or plenty of people (me included as you saw) will assume otherwise.

Starting with pulling on the door is already impolite imo. If there is no visual cue as to the occupancy of the room, then the first thing one should do is knock. If the light is off or the occupancy signal says it's free, then sure, try the handle. Otherwise knock first, give the person who is shitting there a chance to reply with "occupied" or to knock back. But looking through gaps or trying if the door opens with the handle and then going "oops sorry", please no.

Same goes up for offices, meeting spaces, bedrooms etc, when the door is closed and it could be occupied, always knock before attempting to enter. Less bad when someone does it, but still, one could just knock.

Fault? I didn't mean to imply that China is responsible for starting the latest bout of civil war in Myanmar, because they weren't. There's really no reason to believe that whenever something bad happens, some outside big boogeyman is entirely to blame. If you want to know what caused the current civil war to start, try looking it up, but please don't make assumptions.

If you can't look it up because of time constraints or other reasons, then accept that you don't know. It's impossible to know everything, so there's nothing wrong with not knowing some things. But imo not knowing something and knowing that you don't know, is a lot better than making assumptions and inventing alternate facts.

Why didn't you try knocking? Knock twice 2 times, with a few seconds pause in between, if no response, then you can try the door. Going straight to looking into the gap is ... creepy imo.

Edit: this was in reply to "The only way to know was to look in the gap.". And no it wasn't. Knock for fucks sake, have some manners.

China is a direct neighbour of Myanmar, with a history of political meddling in Myanmar and also of setting up illegal exploitative businesses by entrepreneurs. But even without the meddling, they are direct neighbours, which should be enough reason for Myanmar journalists to want to know what is going on in China.

If it wasn't deniable by pundits like you, then it wouldn't be a dog whistle.