#global degrees

[edwisefoundation]

Why Studying in the USA is Better Than in Other Countries

Discover why studying in the USA is a top choice for international students. The United States offers unparalleled educational opportunities, from world-class universities and recognized degrees to vibrant campus life and diverse cultural experiences. Students benefit from academic excellence, flexible career opportunities, and strong support systems designed to help them thrive both academically and personally.

For a deeper understanding of why studying in the USA is better than in other countries, visit our detailed guide on studying in the USA.

[cleaningouttherooms]

if you're looking for further antipsych readings, i heavily recommend bruce cohen's psychiatric hegemony: a marxist theory of mental illness.

it would be one of the published academic books on the topic of psychiatry i would have the least amount of caveats for - together with anne harrington's mind fixers: psychiatry's troubled search for the biology of mental illness.

if you are already convinced that psychiatry, together with other sciences, evolved alongside capitalist development to serve bourgeois interests, ensure social control and legitimize the hegemonic world order - and that no amount of intradisciplinary reform can change this, short of total abolition - then you will likely not be learning much from this book. it does however lay the arguments very clearly, together with concise, clearly explained marxist theory about labor. it then goes on to tie psychiatry with other hegemonic structures - the family, most notably.

interestingly enough, it manages to completely avoid two of the most common pitfalls of this kind of text: it never places the issue with the use of drugs themselves, but with forced medication and lack of available information - and it never blames capitalism itself for the coercive and punishing character of psychiatry, inventing a precapitalistic mythical past where crazy people were fine.

a solid recommendation if you are trying to give an introduction to antipsychiatry concepts to someone!

[karlydraws]

The Sweater Season is now in full swing

[stargirl230]

Happy holidays! Have some frogs 🐸

(no reposts; reblogs appreciated)

[helenvaughans]

y’all taylor swift clearly needs multiple restraining orders considering the depths of psychosexual obsession donald trump, elon musk, and kanye west clearly have with her

[contemplatingoutlander]

Earth passed a feared global warming milestone Friday, at least briefly

The planet marked an ominous milestone Friday: The first day global warmth crossed a threshold, if only briefly, that climate scientists have warned could have calamitous consequences. Preliminary data show global temperatures averaged more than 2 degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit) above a historic norm, from a time before humans started consuming fossil fuels and emitting planet-warming greenhouse gases. That does not mean efforts to limit global warming have failed — yet. Temperatures would have to surpass the 2-degree benchmark for months and years at a time before scientists consider it breached. But it’s a striking reminder that the climate is moving into uncharted territory. Friday marked the first time that everyday fluctuations around global temperature norms, which have been steadily increasing for decades, swung the planet beyond the dangerous threshold. It occurs after months of record warmth that have stunned many scientists, defying some expectations of how quickly temperatures would accelerate this year. “I think while we should not read too much into a single day above 2C (or 1.5C for that matter) it’s a startling sign nonetheless of the level of extreme global temperatures we are experiencing in 2023,” Zeke Hausfather, a climate scientist with Stripe and Berkeley Earth, said in a message to The Washington Post. Samantha Burgess, deputy director of the European Union’s Copernicus Climate Change Service, said Sunday on the social media platform X that Friday’s global temperatures were 1.17C (2.1F) above the 1991-2020 average, a record-setting margin. Given how much human-caused warming had occurred by that period, that means Friday’s average global temperature was 2.06C (3.7F) above a preindustrial reference period, 1850-1900, she said.

Is it finally time for the world to take climate change seriously?

[rjzimmerman]

Excerpt from this story from Grist:

In 2015, when the countries of the world hammered out the Paris Agreement, they committed to limiting global temperatures to 2 degrees Celsius above preindustrial levels and “pursuing efforts” toward keeping them below 1.5 degrees C. The plan didn’t work out so well. Ten years later, the planet might have crossed that lower threshold sooner than expected.

A pair of new studies in the journal Nature Climate Change looked at historical data and came to the conclusion that the record heat last year — the first year to surpass 1.5 degrees C — wasn’t a temporary fluke, but a sign that the world is now soaring past this influential climate target over the long term. The new year continued that upward trajectory. Even as a natural cooling pattern called La Niña took hold recently, January managed to be hotter than ever, clocking in at a record 1.75 degrees C warmer than the preindustrial average. 

One analysis of the two studies warned that Earth had entered a “frightening new phase.” It’s a reflection of the language that has been used around 1.5 C ever since the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the United Nations-backed team of leading climate experts, wrote an influential report in 2018 on the consequences of exceeding that threshold, which it estimated would happen in 2030. Headlines warned that the world had 12 years to avert climate catastrophe. The line was echoed by the young Swedish activist Greta Thunberg and Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez from New York. So is the world now at the edge of disaster?

Mike Hulme, a professor of human geography at the University of Cambridge, asserts that it isn’t. “There’s no ‘cliff edge’ that emerges from any of the scientific analyses that have been done about these thresholds,” he said. “They are, in many senses, just arbitrary numbers plucked because they are either integers or half of an integer.” 

Hulme, who has been studying the way people think about climate change for decades, argues that an obsession with global temperatures misunderstands why people care about climate change in the first place: They care about how it affects their lives, not abstract readings of the thermometer. He’s also argued that climate advocates should stop chasing a series of “deadlines” to try to drum up enthusiasm for meeting these goals.

Grist spoke with Hulme to learn more about how setting these deadlines can backfire and if there’s a better way to talk about how to make progress on climate change. This interview has been condensed and edited for clarity.

Q.You’ve written that the 1.5 C goal “painted the world into a dangerous corner.” What exactly was dangerous about it? 

A.The danger of this goal is that it was always impossible to achieve — or 99 percent impossible to achieve — 10 years ago. And everybody, I think, who understands both the dynamics of the physical climate system, and also the dynamics of the world energy system, understood that — 1.5 became a campaigning number around which civic groups, activists, and youth entrepreneurs mobilized: “1.5 to stay alive.” It was interpreted as being if 1.5 was breached, then the world either moved into an entirely different physical state that was dangerous compared to 1.4 — or, and this came along later, that somehow 1.5 represents a “tipping point” in the Earth system, which if exceeded, triggers certain feedback mechanisms that cannot be undone. 

Either way, it cultivates an atmosphere of fear. And the danger is, if we’ve transgressed 1.5, the feeling mounts that somehow it’s game over, that we’ve failed in our task to manage the risks of climate change. And that, to some at least, will cultivate cynicism, disillusion, and a loss of focus. These are dangerous emotions. They don’t help with clear-eyed thinking around the difficult politics of climate and energy.

[elkkiel]

kinda realizing I don't know jack shit about Canadian queer history????? I've only ever learned about it from an American lens and I don't think I could name a single Canadian queer activist. guess I've got my Pride Month Queer Enrichment Activities™ decided then lol

[catenary-chad]

wacky train society thoughts: virtually NO all-electric trains claim diesel-electrics as “electric trains”. That is a very one way street where only diesel electrics claim to count as “electric”, it’s like how “Judeo-Christian” is 99% used by the latter vs the former. Yes, larger diesel locomotives became practical in the 20s-30s when they started using electric transmission technology from existing electric locos…. but they’re WILDLY different politically and economically (and culturally) because depending on external electrical infrastructure for power vs an onboard generator totally changes where and how you live. Whether you care about the condition of the power grid and catenary tension or emissions laws and compression ratio is a HUGE divide.

There’s a whole spectrum of assimilation and blending with bimodes, who are somewhere in between and open about that. Some are mainly electric with some diesel backup, some are just diesel-electric with a third rail shoe for puttering around tunnels. Of course anyone can be converted to one or the other with enough effort and is pretty much instantly accepted because cultural divides between traction is based on very utilitarian things.

Battery trains are allowed the electric label since technically they did have it first, but they’re not culturally or politically the same as non-battery electric.

hilariously enough, electric trains DO claim electric models as their own because they more or less run like tiny versions of full-sized third rail (and two-rail systems were used once or twice on early tramways). The very first electric train was technically model-sized (Thomas Davenport’s in 1834) and their early history had a lot of fine lines between “oversized toy” “really tiny freight railway” and “we’ll count this as light rail”. I think they see them like fairies.

[lew-dee-tee]

this took too long ugh...

some facts about ariel and also a voice claim yay (it's in jp cuz 1) i'm a weeb and 2) idk much about en voices and such... it's mainly about the tone and pitch tho, so yeee ><)

also let's ignore that the time for each slide is different lol

separate fact slides are utc

[doueverwonder]

Indiana became a state in 1816 aka the Year Without Summer; and while it didn't become a state until December of that year I will be using this for 2 wttt Indiana hc;

A. Indy is always cold, main reason he's the premier hoodie thief in the statehouse.

B. because it was such a horrid year for crops Indiana, who I think was about ten physically when he *popped* into existence, spent their first while on the planet rationing food & regularly going to bed hungry. This developed his lovely habit of hoarding food, and being the worst offender when it comes to the "you're not leaving the table til you've cleaned your plate". None of these habits were helped by the fact that (according to me) he was raised by Virginia who is the same way because of the Starving Time.

[pppeonies]

anytime someone is like "the weather is beautiful today!" and its like 85° degrees in the beginning of January or some shit in the Midwestern US i'm like................. literally what is wrong with u..?

[10yearsofdnp]

December 29, 2014: Poor Silly Philly's feeling chilly! 🥶❄️

[anextravagantliar]

theyre calling for snow on the beach again

[faeofpluto]

Haven't posted in ages cause this heat is fucking me in every way imaginable.

And not in the way I'd like 😞💔

[saisons-en-enfer]

Out of curiosity I asked ChatGPT how much longer earth will be habitable… and one of the human factors was and I kid you not

“AI and biotechnology - if not controlled and regulated will lead to existential crises”

An AI said this

I just asked because people kept asking me why I don’t want children along with my reasoning for when I say humanity will be extinct in 50 years