Honestly, this comment is gold! Informative and great fun. Absolutely brilliant, especially the last part! I literally laughed out loud 😅
oxbech
Dette kommentarspor tilhører nu Kongeriget Danmark! 😀
Not only is it generally harmless when eaten, it is in fact allowed to be added to food in up to 5% concentrations in Europe, 2% in the US. The FDA lists it as “Generally Recognised as Safe”. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silica_gel#Uses
I suspect that the whole “Do Not Eat” is partly because the Silica Gel in the little bags is not made to food safe standards, but that’s just speculation on my part
They actually aren’t in Russia but either Georgia or Azerbaijan I don’t quite remember which for that specific scene. But I believe Georgia.
Although that might change in future I suppose. At least Russia seems to want that… sigh
And in Denmark it’s Holger
I had an Nokia, my last “featurephone” before I got my first smartphone, which actually had an FM tuner built-in. It used the headphone wire as an antenna as far as I recall. Quite neat, not that I ever really used it, but it was perfectly serviceable. And a great way of having music on the go in the days before streaming music was widely available.
“Pointer”, ha!
I suppose “offering” might not be the right word, but I think the whole point is whether it is a waste of taxpayer money or not. As I wrote, I don’t think it makes sense to expect a worthwhile economic return from hosting the Olympics, but there is of course other types of “wealth” besides money. For example, if only money mattered a building should be built in as cheap a fashion as possible, but spending a bit more on making it beautiful is worth (to me at least) for the “wealth” it provides society in improving the beauty of our surroundings. I think the question becomes if it is worth the cost of hosting the Olympics, for the “wealth” of allowing the citizens of a country/city a chance of attending without travelling half way around the globe. Additionally there’s the “wealth” gained from the civic pride of having your country/city be the center of the world’s attention in a largely positive manner for the course of the games.
Oh yes, I fully agree. My point, I guess, is more that not every tourist coming to Paris for the Olympic is an “extra” tourist, since some people who would otherwise go, won’t.
The question is also how many of them will come back to Paris once the games are over, who wouldn’t have, were it not for the games. If the olympics don’t result in additional tourists in the years following it, then it would seem unlikely it was economically worth it. That’s why I think it is fundamentally wrong to base whether you want to hold the Olympics based on expected economic returns.
Personally, I love visiting France, but won’t be visiting this summer due to the overcrowding that comes with the Olympics. I’m actually sort of yearning to revisit Paris but I guess I’ll have to wait until next year or perhaps winter. So I’m one of those visitors who’s (temporarily) dissuaded from going due to the event.
I will say that I think looking at it as an economic “thing” is fundamentally wrong. Hosting the olympics should be about offering the locals a chance to experience world class sports events and the civic pride that comes with putting your country on the map. If you only want to do it for economic benefits, then you really shouldn’t host it.
Nu har jeg ikke læst bøgerne, så hvor tæt de fulgte kildemateriale kan jeg ikke sige så meget til. Jeg er dog enig i at anden sæson havde lidt flere huller i historien. Det eneste jeg tænkte med første sæson var hvordan en tilsyneladende kæmpe virksomhed flytter ind i en lille by og enten bliver ingen lokale ansat eller de skal finde nok i den lille by der er villige til at bidrage til svindel og holde det hemmeligt. Begge virker lidt underligt.
Men hvis man bare acceptere dem som lidt “hjernedød” action sjov hvor en stor gut går rundt og smadrer “onde kriminelle” synes jeg begge sæsoner er var fine.
Du skriver du kunne lide noget Sci-Fi, det er ikke noget jeg selv har læst meget af, men kan anbefale “Den sorte tåge” af Fred Hoyle hvis du kan finde et eksemplar. Jeg tror den fangede mig som få andre bøger.
Er lige blevet færdig med Robert Harris’ “Fatherland”, super velskrevet og interessant “alternative history” om hvordan verden kunne være hvis Tyskland vandt 2. verdenskrig, skrevet af en historiker. Og så er det bare en god historie synes jeg.
Hvis du ikke har læst Jan Guillous “Det store århundrede” serie er især de tre første vildt gode i min mening; “Brobyggerne”, “Dandy”, og “Mellem rødt og sort”.
Også “Sæt en vagtpost ud” af Harper Lee er fantastisk!
Sidst men ikke mindst er Anne Franks Dagbog faktisk yderst anbefalelseværdig. Føles på en måde mere relevant for tiden. Købte den i Anne Franks Hus i Amsterdam i sommers og er endelig kommet til at læse den.