ObjectivityIncarnate

You are definitely not beating the “deliberately obtuse” allegations.

In no way did Musk insist that the entire plan be tweeted in plain text as tweets, and no reasonable person would consider putting a link to X (pardon the pun) in a Twitter thread as not counting as ‘putting X in a Twitter thread’.

“not linked document” is literally a lie, why would you think it wouldn’t be identified as such, when his exact words are so readily available?

This article is about Brazil.

According to the same article, 42% of drug dealers did not complete elementary school. Not quite the same situation as what it’s like in the US.

Do you think this is some new idea that hasn’t been tried yet, or something?

The people still starving are starving due to abuse, neglect, political instability, and war. None of those things can be fixed with money, or improved production. What good is improved production going to do the masses when the local warlord takes control of it (and therefore the food supply)? Arguably, creating those tools in areas where that unrest/instability still exists is likely to make things worse, not better, because it literally makes the oppressors more efficient.

The bottom line is that you can’t end world hunger until/unless there is world peace.

Did you read anything but the title?

So you’re essentially admitting to the headline being misleading. We can agree on that.

Moving production around and creating new transporrt routes are not ongoing costs.

It’s also not the reason world hunger still exists.

A URL linking to a fully fleshed-out plan can be linked in much less than 140 characters, you’re being deliberately obtuse, and also evading the main issue I pointed out, that their response was a colossal backpedal from their initial sensational claim.

They aid by creating and developing agricultural infrastructure, not just buying people food.

I include all of that when I say “food” above. Those things also don’t have a cost that goes away after a handful of years.

The headline talks about “ending hunger by 2030”, not ending hunger until 2030. The notion that any fixed dollar amount of X spent now will/could “end” hunger in 4 years time is ridiculous, full stop.

NOT EXACTLY.

Bottom line: to solve world hunger, first you need to achieve world peace.

And you can’t buy peace.

You’re misremembering, or lying.

Musk replied to a claim by the UN that 2% of his wealth ($6 billion, at the time) could “solve world hunger”, calling their bluff by saying that if they showed him how that was possible with a detailed, transparent plan, he’d give them the money immediately.

The response Musk got was a massive backpedal, a plan that described helping world hunger, not ending/“solving” it, and only for one year.

Bluff was successfully called.

The bottom line is that you can’t solve world hunger until you solve world peace.

And peace can’t be bought.

Food continues to be a need more than 4 years from now. That’s not an “end”.

No, I just know it’s ridiculous to think food is something that magically stops costing money after a time, especially a time as short as 4 years.

Why is an annual figure being directly compared to an “over the past decade” figure?

Did you miss the words “a year”?

Donny 2 Inches

Donny 2 Dolls

What are you even talking about at this point? lol

You admit, within your sarcasm, that you’re guessing at the rate of incidence.

That was the entirety of my point, really.

The “undercurrent of hostility” exists only in your imagination. I just stated some facts that contradict the assertion, which I think is fair to say is much more hostile in nature than anything I wrote, ironically.

I certainly never compared Mexico or anything in it to feces, anyway.

How many people has that happened to? Surely you can show that it’s happened a statistically-significant number of times, to talk about that as if it’s a normal/typical course of action.

Or has alarmist media made you assume it’s a common event, when it isn’t?

Not offended, just pointing out the objective absurdity of the comparison, on the axis of overall average danger.

Don’t project your emotional response onto me.

We are talking about the risk to travelers.

Where the travelers are traveling to, and away from, generally tells you all you need to know about where the overall quality of life is better.

Again, Mexico’s net migration is literally negative. If two bordering nations have one nation that has a net loss of population to emigration, and the other has a large net positive from immigration from the bordering nation, saying that the former is “bread” and the other is “shit”, sounds pretty ridiculous on its face.

Not to mention that it comes with it the heavy implication that you know better than the majority of those who actually undertook the endeavor of leaving their home country behind in search of better surroundings.