I actually asked Le Chat yesterday, what would happen if oil became irrelevant:

If oil were not a valuable resource, the geopolitical interests in the Middle East would likely shift, but the region would still hold significance for several other reasons. Here are some potential international geopolitical interests that could remain:

1. Strategic Location: The Middle East’s strategic location at the crossroads of Europe, Asia, and Africa makes it a crucial area for global trade and military strategy. Control over key waterways, such as the Suez Canal, the Strait of Hormuz, and the Bab el-Mandeb, would continue to be of great importance for international shipping and naval power projection.

2. Trade Routes: The region serves as a vital land bridge and maritime corridor for global trade. Ensuring the security and stability of these trade routes would remain a priority for international powers.

3. Religious and Cultural Significance: The Middle East is home to some of the world’s most important religious sites for Islam, Christianity, Judaism, and other faiths. The custodianship of these sites and the influence over religious narratives would continue to be of interest to various state and non-state actors.

4. Security Concerns: The Middle East has been a hotspot for terrorism, insurgencies, and regional conflicts. International powers would likely remain engaged in the region to address security concerns, prevent the spread of extremism, and maintain regional stability.

5. Alliances and Partnerships: Many countries have established alliances and partnerships with Middle Eastern states based on shared interests, security agreements, and historical ties. These relationships would likely continue, albeit with a different focus.

6. Economic Interests: Beyond oil, the Middle East has other economic resources and opportunities, such as minerals, agriculture, and emerging markets. International investment and economic cooperation in these areas could continue to drive geopolitical interests.

7. Humanitarian and Development Issues: The Middle East faces numerous humanitarian challenges, including refugees, internal displacement, and development needs. International actors may remain engaged in the region to address these issues and promote human rights and development.

8. Regional Power Dynamics: The Middle East has several regional powers with their own geopolitical ambitions and rivalries. International actors may seek to influence these dynamics to maintain a balance of power and protect their interests.

9. Technological and Scientific Collaboration: The region has potential for technological and scientific advancements, particularly in areas like renewable energy, desalination, and agriculture. Collaboration in these fields could be of mutual interest.

In summary, while the value of oil has significantly shaped international geopolitical interests in the Middle East, the region’s strategic location, cultural significance, security concerns, and economic opportunities would likely ensure continued engagement from global powers. The nature and extent of this engagement would depend on a complex interplay of factors and evolving global priorities.

As I said, the song was a really big deal when it happened, there was a massive outcry. I believe the incident took place in 2013, the year Malema founded his party. His platform absolutely runs on hatred of white people, and this was a way for him to gain political relevance.

The objections to Malema singing the song went through the courts, as they should, and Malema had to go all the way to the Supreme Court of Appeal. (The final judgement is from 2024.) I would assume that he sang it again after that but honestly try to ignore him as much as possible.

However, there was no point in Trump showing videos of Malema to the South African delegation. They had nothing to do with it. In fact, the ANC promised in 2012 never to sing that protest song again (it was originally one of their protest songs).

More importantly, this video is not evidence of a white genocide, past, present, or planned.

Edit to add: The reality is that there is a notable segment of the population that is angry. The economy is bad, unemployment is crazy high, electricity is insufficient (load shedding is a disaster), violent crime remains high, etc. It’s easier for them to keep blaming white people than acknowledge that it’s been 30 years of black rule now. Malema is a symptom of these issues. A meaningful discussion around this topic would have been valuable, but that’s not what Trump did.

The one was a picture of a large number of crosses which Trump said was a burial site for 1000s of white farmers, when it was in fact a memorial following the death of 2 farmers. The memorial was intended to represent all farm deaths of all races. Farm deaths are an issue but the victims are of all races - they kill the farmers, their families and the workers.

There was a video of a political leader singing a song that translates to “Kill the Boer” i.e. kill the white Afrikaans farmer. This video is: a) more than a decade old, b) from a rally of a minority opposition party i.e. not the political party of the people Trump was meeting, c) from a political party that has been losing votes in recent elections, led by someone who was expelled from the ruling party, d) is of a historic protest song from the apartheid era i.e. more than 30 years ago.

This video resulted in a court case, where the court concluded that a “reasonably well-informed person” would understand that when a protest song is sung “even by politicians, the words are not meant to be understood literally, nor is the gesture of shooting to be understood as a call to arms or violence.”

This video was a big deal at the time but it’s not current, not representative of the government’s view, and the person depicted in it is increasingly being sidelined in South African politics.

You’re missing the point, this law is not anti-sex work. You can be pro sex work and still be in favour of this law.

Legalising prostitution doesn’t make illegal prostitution go away. On the contrary, by normalising prostitution, the demand increases but the legal (voluntary) supply doesn’t. This increased demand is then supplied via increased sex trafficking by crime syndicates. This is a huge problem in the Netherlands that they haven’t managed to solve in the 25 years prostitution has been legal.

Even for the legally registered prostitutes, the improvements are limited. Financial exploitation and violence remain rampant.

By decriminalising the prostitutes, the Swedes are effectively providing them with legal protection. By criminalising the buyer, they suppress demand, which reduces sex trafficking, and is the best protection for society as a whole.

As a feminist, I’m a staunch advocate of bodily autonomy and have no issue with sex workers. However, what cost should society accept for their right to provide these services? If for every 10 legal prostitutes, 1 additional person is forced into sexual slavery, is that cost worthwhile to you? How about 1 sex slave for every 5 legal prostitutes? How about a 1 to 2 ratio?

According to this source:

the [Netherlands] government struggles to calculate the number of individuals in its regulated sex trade (numbers range from 6,000 to 30,000)

The law has also failed to curb trafficking, with a reported 5,000 to 8,000 victims each year, two thirds of which for purposes of sexual exploitation

So, best case scenario = 30,000 prostitutes vs 3,333 (5000 x 2/3) sex slaves = 1 slave for every 9 registered prostitutes

Worst case scenario = 6,000 prostitutes vs 5,333 sex slaves = 8 slaves for every 9 registered prostitutes

Now some of these people would have been trafficked anyway, but there is a lot of evidence that trafficking has increased substantially since legalising prostitution.

So, where do you draw the line? Personally, I find the societal cost to be unacceptably high to justify legalisation of prostitution.

I agree from a bodily autonomy perspective that everyone should have the right to do what they wish with their bodies. If the sex industry was primarily individuals or small scale brothels, with everything voluntary, then legalising prostitution would make sense. Unfortunately, that’s not the case.

The sex industry is huge, with large crime syndicates involved, so legalising prostitution in the Netherlands resulted in higher sex trafficking. Once prostitution was normalised, the demand for services increased but the supply didn’t. Human traffickers bring in women to meet the demand and the Netherlands government haven’t been able to stop it.

There are a lot of online sources confirming this, including this recent (long) report: Failed Promises: The history of legal prostitution and sex trafficking in the Kingdom of the Netherlands.

A big issue with Switzerland is that the EU lacks direct democracy i.e. the ability for the people to force a vote.

It’s actually pretty awesome. I mean sometimes they end up forcing a vote on stupid things but generally it’s a safeguard that allows the people to block legal changes. So a situation like the Trump tariffs couldn’t happen in Switzerland if the majority of the population objected.

Personally, I think the EU would be a stronger democracy if they added it, and the odds of Switzerland joining would increase substantially.

The 2nd half of the article also mentions an AI generated song released by China’s state run media.

https://news.cgtn.com/news/2025-04-03/-Liberation-Day-or-a-price-to-pay--1CgrB0bz7by/index.html

It’s basically subjecting the entire population to 1 hour jetlag twice a year. The problematic switch is to summer time (losing an hour), which causes many people to be tired for most of the week following the change.

Lots of tired people means more accidents on the road and at work. There is also a definite uptick in heart attacks.

Then there is the longer term impact of late evening light on people’s sleep. Whilst it is more social to have more light at night, it’s better for our sleep for darkness to come earlier and to have more light in the mornings. There are tons of studies on the health impacts of insufficient sleep and / or misaligned body circadian rhythms. Summer time is particularly problematic for night owls (which includes all teenagers), who already struggle to fall asleep at a reasonable time.

The economic costs arise from things like loss of productivity due to tiredness, accidents, and higher health costs.

Thank you so much for taking the time to explain, I really appreciate it.

Tissue Resident Macrophages hang out in the area of initial infection, waiting for “that guy” to show up again.

This is specifically the bit I’m struggling with. How will they know it’s “that guy”?

It’s a bit like saying “We know this criminal uses disguises. We’ve given everyone copies of his mugshot, which they’ve used for target practice. Now if he wanders in wearing a disguise, people will recognise him.”

As I understand it, “hidden” is a relative thing.

I guess this is the answer?

Going back to my analogy, you’re saying his disguises are pretty simple. So he might wear glasses or a fake beard, but he isn’t likely to turn up in a full clown outfit, with multi-coloured hair, make up, and a big red nose.

This didn’t answer the question for me.

I get the 1st part: They’ve unhidden a stable spike protein hidden by sugars and used it to create an immune response.

The long-term effectiveness is where I’m getting lost. How will the immune system know when to use these particular anti-bodies in the future? If, say, 5 years after being vaccinated I’m infected, surely the relevant spike proteins are hidden by sugars. So how can my body recognise them as the same protein and make more of the correct anti-bodies?

Stealing this comment from u/Turicus on reddit (r/Switzerland):

I think they knew what they bought. This article is exaggerating.

The hangars at Belp are being upgraded to accommodate the new jet. Until then it flies from Payerne, ZRH or GVA. The first two are reachable in an hour from Bern.

The article is saying that the runway is too short. But that’s true only at full load. At MTOW (maximum take-off weight, meaning with 100% fuel and passengers), the plane is rated for a runway of 1760m at sea level. The runway at Belp is 1730m.

So they can’t fully use the max range of 14-15’000km. The old jet had a range ~8’000km. Even if they take off with a 90% fuel load because of the runway, the new jet will go much farther than the old one. For most destinations, it will avoid a stopover, saving time and money.

By the way, the Bundesrat often flies commercial for cost reasons. Anyway, there’s one jet, so they can’t all use it at once.