Rural populations are negligible and covered under other factors in a number of countries (in the US, Internet access). It’s not worth mentioning because it’s not a relevant part of data.

The goal of this comparison is to compare urban-to-urban, because those countries which don’t have this exclusion have relatively tiny rural populations.

The IMF wants to protect private investors at the cost of country-scale investors. Once again, fuck the IMF.

Then your statement doesn’t make sense lol

The rural/urban divide isn’t unique to China or India or Brazil. It’s everywhere. Drivers are always different across the urban/rural divide.

Isn’t happiness the goal? Why does it matter what their driver is?

deleted by creator

That’s actually not how modern China gained territory. The settlements in Xinjiang were explicitly designed to not step on the traditional Uyghur economic/cultural center of Kashgar. Instead, settlement surrounded Urumqi, a place that used to be a backwater of backwaters (the name meaning “beautiful pasture”). Even today, Kashgar and it’s surrounding areas are majority Uyghur (by far), while Urumqi is majority Han.

Idk I think I’d enjoy being obscenely rich off of my government’s oil money

It’s usually an annotation because Internet/phone penetration among the rural, uneducated, and poor in those countries isn’t great. They don’t have means to survey these people. Surveying the people who do have access to Internet is representative of what “normal people” feel.

The US has ~91% Internet penetration, while China only has 73% and India only 43%.

I don’t really like how HRW does their reporting tbh. It basically consists of “here’s some random Chinese article that suggests something that they might do, which, because China is a single-party state, MUST describe what they do” coupled with “here are some sources from US-funded parties detailing what they claim to be happening in China.”

It’s not a question of whether their statements are accurate, but it’s a question of whether they’ve provided enough evidence to make those statements.

Privatization is such a waste of taxpayer money. You spend all those resources developing domestic capability and then sell it off to the highest bidder for a short-term cash infusion.

Good. Everyone knows it. It’s not news unless you’ve been living under a rock.

Who the fuck downvotes the National Interest?

This is literally American policy idk why anyone’s surprised

You’re a terrorist, you’re not a terrorist. You’re a terrorist, you’re not a terrorist. You’re a terrorist, you’re not a terrorist…

If Yemen and Israel are at war, seizing and even sinking ships is perfectly legal under international law.

Repeatedly saying something does not make it a fact

Intent doesn’t really matter when you have an Apache helicopter with large munitions lol

I’m sure they were all Hamas.

Now they are all hummus.

Anyone citing MBFC as anything other than a joke site needs to reconsider. Thing is, we don’t even know who the author of the site is, and from what he has claimed he has no credentials to make any sort of bias or factuality assessment.

Statement by Hamas’ Izzat Al-Rishq;

"Regarding what the spokesman for the terrorist enemy army said about the arrival of prisoners of the occupation to Al-Shifa Hospital, we said early on that the resistance transferred many prisoners of the occupation to hospitals to receive treatment and undergo surgical operations, especially after some of them were injured as a result of the occupation’s aircraft bombing them.

We risked our fighters to guarantee the injured prisoners the best treatment. Possible in hospitals in the Gaza Strip.

We have published many pictures about this; Now their army spokesman presents it as if they have discovered something great.

What the spokesman for the occupation army says completely condemns them. These are points that are recorded for us and not for us.

Taking care of the prisoners, treating them, and giving them possible medical care is a point for us and not for us."