December 11 2019, 00:24

Today, I decided to check out what looked like an interesting event based on the advertisement, https://aeronautsjourney.com. My friend and I spent about 45 minutes looking for it in the park. Along the way, we met a family who was also searching, a guy with a dog who insisted that there was definitely nothing like that in the park, and another guy who remembered that a tent had been taken down in the morning and showed us where.

We found it. Look at the photo on the right. I haven’t seen such a sad sight in a long time. And such a contrast to the advertising! The nearby botanical garden was our savior, which they decided to decorate with lights to charge for entrance tickets till late at night. Great idea and execution.

Here’s a video from there

December 08 2019, 13:57

Less than a month ago, I was in Warsaw at the royal museum exactly on the day they offered free admission. It seems like it was free for the entire month of November.

Then I went to Stuttgart, and there was free admission to the main art museum due to the Hermes at work exhibition, which was also free.

Today I am in Atlanta, and precisely on that one day of the month when the entrance to the main art museum is free. In all three cases, they sent me to the ticket desk to pick up a free ticket. Long-established processes are probably hard to change.

December 07 2019, 23:12

Can you enlighten me on this matter? I seem to be “out of my depth” with these issues.

If there is a country where 50% of the territory is occupied by 51% of the population, who would unanimously vote for the independence of their 50% if they were asked in a national referendum. The country is a corporation of the country’s citizens, and the land is the corporation’s property. Is it stipulated anywhere in the constitutions of any country that the people have such a right? Let’s assume the remaining 49% living on the other half are making their lives miserable and mismanaging their joint savings, and they want to live in a separate country, consisting only of them.

Now let’s complicate the issue. The 51% of the population actually live not on 50% of the territory, but on 10% of that 50%, yet they still want the whole 50%. Why not? They are the majority, aren’t they? Why should they consider the interests of the minority on the other half?

Why do patriots love the land they did not invest in, just as their fathers and grandfathers didn’t, when all they did was live there? I understand when someone invested in a bridge and then there is a possibility of losing it, then one can raise the issue of compensation; but when no one built the bridge, why is there an attachment to the land into which not a penny was invested by the people living on it?