They generally are, in rich countries. In poorer countries with less developed infrastructure you can still commonly find them.

If you want to go to Europe, don’t apply for asylum. This has no chance of succeeding, even for people from war-torn countries with ongoing genocides it is difficult.

The easiest way is to apply for a study visa. There are many EU countries with very good education, very low requirements for admission, and very low (or even no) tuition fees, even for non-EU students. Once you have a degree, you are anchored and can find a job and get citizenship without too much difficulty.

The alternative is to apply for a job. In this case you need some marketable skill that is difficult to find among the locals.

The definition of insanity: continuing to run your game company horribly and expecting different results.

Unfortunately, her case will almost surely be denied since the US has been designated a safe country by Dutch officials, and the trend in most of Europe, under pressure from racist voters and the surging popularity of fascism, is to make the already extremely strict asylum rules even stricter. In some cases (e.g. Denmark) refugee asylum has been all but abolished, in an egregious violation of treaties on assisting refugees (and preventing genocide).

The good news for people like Arc is that for US citizens it is overwhelmingly easier to obtain residency status legally in the EU in countries like the Netherlands, compared to getting a Green Card in the US. She probably should have figured that out before panicking and booking that flight.

Those are laudable goals, but the appetite for democratic reforms currently seems rather anaemic in the US.

After all this time, still no one has managed to convey Trump even a rudimentary understanding of what tariffs are, and what the EU is.

Unfortunately, many UK voters don’t realize they’re setting themselves on the same path in the next election. The UK has one of the most fragile democracies in Europe, and its system is ill-prepared for a fascist majority in the Commons. Farage may be less of a moron than Trump (a low bar), but his voters are cut from the same cloth as Trump’s.

If it makes you feel better, the graph only goes to 2018, and the gap has widened since then.

Will be?

USD counts for about 58% of global currency reserves. That’s the largest by far to be sure, but far from the only relevant one, and the ratio has been steadily trending downwards (though interestingly, it hasn’t been the euro it lost ground to).

Far less efficient, even. There are losses due to conversion, and further losses due to material cost being higher than simple electrical heaters, and more losses due to the innate negative value generated by Bitcoin, which is used exclusively for crime and gambling.

Trump has a 43% approval rating despite destroying the country.

Macron’s approval rating is around 25-30%. Merz’ is just over 20%. Starmer’s is around 45%.

Okay, so a poll among the self-identified Hispanic community says more of them think their economic situation has worsened rather than improved.

Meanwhile though, Trump’s approval rating is stable at 43%, still somewhat above the lowest point of his first term, and the GOP still has a 10-point lead over the Democrats in favourability. Polls for the midterms predict a close race with a small edge for Democrats.

I was walking through the canteen with some classmates. One of them stole a sugar cube intended for coffee from the canteen. A teacher, apparently feeling Biblical, punished the whole group with an hour of detention.

Is there any actual evidence that Science lacks money?

That more money would actually help scientists do more interesting stuff?

Yes, there is a pretty strong correlation between R&D spending and scientific output. Even so, spending is only in the low single digit percentages of the economy everywhere. Societies could easily decide to spend less on decadent luxury and more on science.

Right now, do scientists actually have money problems making it difficult to conduct ambitious research?

So science is a high-risk, high-reward numbers game. You try more things, hire more scientists, and more science will happen. Most research doesn’t lead anywhere, but the small fraction that does leads to things you could just never get without scientific research. Yes, there are many (such as yours truly) who could have continued to be scientists but take jobs in industry because positions as scientific researchers are extremely competitive and there is not enough money to hire all suitable candidates.

I think it’s a sign of a healthy democracy if most people view politicians as servants of the people, rather than viewing themselves as serving the politicians. I have 20 choices, not 2, and I can certainly find candidates more closely aligned ideologically than most Americans can. Yet I would never say I “am” party such-and-such.

They might cover the various celebrations around the world.

At least you act more like it than the real one.

The world overall is extremely peaceful by historical standards, and the same goes for Africa. There are some ongoing wars and conflicts and above-average levels of violent crime, but for the most part lower life expectancy is due to lacking health care and substandard nutrition.

English is one of the easiest languages in the world to learn.