Rofl. That's rich coming from someone making wild claims, whose only citation was one sentence from a Churchill hit piece that contained zero justification for their assertion that Churchill was somehow responsible for India's famines. You then deflect with "read this persons work you ignorant simpleton" without any relevant citations.
Sure buddy. You can keep raging against this machine of yours, I've wasted enough of my Friday trying to reason with a dramatic husky.
Who is defending Britain's colonialism? I'm pushing back at some pretty extreme historical recharacterizations.
This is all some pretty ridiculous Captain Hindsight retconning. There have been tons of agricultural blunders in humanities history. Depletion of soils, monocultures extremely susceptible to disaster, etc.
We learn and adapt. That's humanity.
Resource mismanagement is certainly a factor, and colonies were obviously rife with it. And just as obviously, the conquerors historically didn't exactly care much about the damage they did.
In nature, species boom when there's abundance, and rubber band back hard when scarcity hits directly after a big boom.
At a glance, India's population was almost 10% of the world population during WW2.
Literally laying all the blame at the feet of British mismanagement is a pretty extreme take.
I read the article in your other post.
Ok, so Churchill was an imperialistic prick, debatable even for his time (though the wellknown history of centuries of atrocities commited by imperialistic Britain seems to contradict that...). Sure. I don't think many would defend those actions through today's lens.
But even that article just throws dozens of famine in Indias colonial history squarely at Britain's feet with zero evidence that they were avoidable.
Droughts, disease, infestations happen, and have happened throughout history. We are now better than we ever have been at addressing those crisis at a global scale, and there is still plenty of famine and food insecurity in the world.
This reads more, as I said before, a strawman argument that doesnt do anything to establish that Churchill is responsible for millions of deaths - genocide to be compared with concentration camps.
Also a very litigious society. Even if they mean well, going off the page and trying to figure out a "Haus" solution is just putting themselves at risk.
They have to check all the boxes for your insurance. They have to check all the boxes for their own malpractice insurance. Even if they followed procedure, they might get dragged through the legal system to defend themselves if a client feels wronged.
That turns you, the client, into a number in a dispassionated machine.
And I don't have a solution to it.
Edit - that was a bit too bleak. There are a lot of doctors trying their best to retain humanity in a system aimed at destroying it. The whole med school journey is aimed at weeding the people out who are just in it for the money. It's designed to gatekeep the industry to require a massive amount of passion to get your foot in the door. But the realities of the industry do their best to squash that.
Weight systems like Skyrim are pointless time sinks. They're not realistic, it just means you have to spend far too much time micromanaging your inventory as a basic game mechanic.
Yep, my comment was tongue in cheek. It's a useless result and only sort of makes sense as an overly reduced summary that has lost vital context.
The other reply is the obvious answer. Each answer is from a different viewpoint from a different user.
It's worth it if you accept the post pandemic, post crypto prices to be the new normal.
I'm still rocking my old 980ti because I refuse to pay $600 for an old, mid tier card.
There's nothing wrong about it.
Neither is worth it. But if you have unlimited money, XTX is the better card and therefore a better deal. But if money is a factor, get the XT because the performance per $$$ of the XTX isn't worth selling a kidney.
Well, they're Republicans. Those Pollacks were just dressing too slutty. Hitler had to invade. And France? Come on now.
And for scale
According to a 1941 census, the population of India was 388,997,955. This was an increase of over 50 million from the previous census.
In 1943, India was also experiencing the Bengal famine, which killed an estimated 2.1–3 million people.
70,000 tons, distributed over 389m people, is 0.0003598972 pounds of food were taken away from each Indian person, over a 6-7 month period.
Riiiiight.
Policy lapses such as prioritizing distribution of vital supplies to the military, stopping rice imports and not declaring that it was actually a famine were among the factors that led to the magnitude of the tragedy, he added.
So we're comparing some possible logistics mistakes, in a distant colony, during a defensive war where the ruling country was being bombed on their own soil. Comparing those "incendental" deaths to those of an aggressive conquering army literally rounding up their own citizens and those of the lands they conquered, to be killed.
Right.
She wrote that famine was caused in part by large-scale exports of food from India. India exported more than 70,000 tons of rice between January and July 1943 as the famine set in, she said.
That quantity seems pretty low. In comparison, I found an old post that indicated 300,000 tons of food aid had been supplied to Gaza over 190 days, so similar time spans, to a much smaller population.
Of course, exporting food while the residents are starving is terrible. But this is one study and one interpretation of results.
This certainly sounds like yet another bad faith strawman talking point by Nazi sympathizers.
In true republican fashion, he didn't care until his own family was hurt by the MAGA cult. Typical.