It's an interesting fact that one could save many lives by donating to charities and yet wouldn't feel quite the same way about it. Clicking "donate" on a screen and filling in credit card details isn't as thrilling an experience as yours even if it achieves no less.
Charities aren't appealing not just because you don't feel as connected to outcomes, but because we know many of them pay out big paycheques to execs and other overhead to the point where barely any of our donations are put to good use.
Maybe just being cynical about it, but if I help out at a soup kitchen I know I'm helping people, when I donate I am just getting a tax credit and boosting a charity's executive bonuses.
There's actually an entire field called Effective Altruism [1] that's dedicated to researching which charities put donations to good use - and there are quite a few of them [2]
Also, overheads like executive bonuses don't _necessarily_ mean that the charity is ineffective [3]
I don't think it's about being cynical and more about proximity. I'm not as pessimistic about charities. We don't get the same good feelings helping people we don't know for the same reason we don't care about all the people that is suffering right now.
On this note, my parents have been in contact with a African woman for years who they helped via one of those child sponsorship programs. Shes an adult now and literally yesterday she called and texted my Mom via her own funds and everything. It doesn't seem like a petty thing after all.
This nicely encapsulates why our society sucks. Helping people you can't see doesn't provide the self-congratulation dopamine hit, thus people don't do it.
Eh, investing in something like a Mars mission could return on investment many times here on Earth, that might solve those problems quicker. E.g. vertical farming tech.
It depends...like I said in my comment you replied to:
>maybe acting on the best info at the time or acting as puppet for China
The WHO is supposed to be an independent international organization, so again the question is what kind of independent study or review did the WHO do before accepting the representations of Chinese authorities and repeating them to the World?
If the WHO did nothing but promoted a tweet at the request of Chinese authorities without an independent investigation into the merits of the tweet, then it seems clear they should not have posted it at all.
Either way the international community needs to know who these Chinese authorities were and an independent review of these preliminary investigations needs to be completed.
If you don't need to install stuff from npm and prefer to hack your own, here's a nice list of CSS patterns to get you started: https://leaverou.github.io/css3patterns/
It does require a bit more setup and getting used to but once you're up to speed you'll be going like a madman.
I highly advise adding PurgeCSS to the build pipeline with Tailwind, it can reduce the output CSS from around 250kB to 15kB for a small website without removing stuff manually from the configuration. The setup is explained in the docs [0].
