Some good info, but some kind of simplistic. I lived in Nigeria for the second half of my childhood in the 80s and 90s and got malaria several times. People come down with it all the time, and typically treat it, and you can recover without treatment also. Most people die from sickle cell anemia when young, but I know multiple outliers who have lived to middle age, and they might live longer yet.
It's easy to test for malaria, if you actually think to test for malaria. In the 90s, we used to hear wild stories from people we knew who would come down with malaria shortly after returning to the USA and doctors and nurses would freak out not knowing what to do about it, and the medication would be expensive to obtain, so the conventional wisdom was also to remember to take a few pills with you on the plane back to the USA!
It's sad but unsurprising that no one was able to treat these German workers in time. When I was a child, there was already talk of strains developing resistance, and this has gotten worse in the 21st century, and the airport workers caught the most deadly strain:
> It's sad but unsurprising that no one was able to treat these German workers in time.
Literally every pharmacy over here sells treatment against malaria – many have it in stock and even if they don't, they'll be able to get it for you within a few hours. Every major city (certainly every city with an airport where you could catch airport malaria) has a hospital with a department specifically for infectious and tropical diseases, where they'll happily take care of you. GPs ask you if you've been to the equator lately if you go see them with high fever. I'm not sure how a country where malaria is not common at all would be able to do any better?
Also, as I mentioned in another comment, airport staff are instructed to watch out for malaria symptoms precisely because airport malaria is a thing.
Something definitely went wrong here but from afar it surely doesn't look like a healthcare failure to me. Maybe the deceased stayed home, thinking they had caught a cold and would be able to sit it out?
Somehow it still lead to two deaths. Maybe GPs didn’t ask/didn’t know about airport malaria, or airport workers were some subcontractors and never gotten instructed.
I've had plenty of bad airline experiences and wished they gave me more for my trouble, but clearly they are unable to at current margins. If you want the market to provide a better service, it already does: you can pay tons more to fly private, either a charter or your own jet you purchased!
> I've had plenty of bad airline experiences and wished they gave me more for my trouble, but clearly they are unable to at current margins.
It's weird to see people simp for the airline industry. A cursory google search shows that United Airlines, to take one example, made $4,300,000,000 in profits before taxes last year. This is money that could easily be spent on things like better maintenance, more pilots and crew, and other expenditures that would make flights less apt to be delayed or canceled. Instead it goes to shareholders and executives.
This was a fantastic year for United, and the margin is ~6%! They lost a similar amount in 2020. The earnings history definitely backs up the story of relatively low margins, weak growth and a fair amount of volatility to deal with.
I wouldn't be surprised that an airline lost money in one of the worst travel years of all time (due to Covid).
Cursory searching shows United made more than $3,000,000,000 in 2024. So even if 2025 was an unusually good year for them, it wasn't a complete anomaly. Just goes to show that when flights get delayed due to insufficient available crew or maintenance issues, it's a savings that's passed on to investors and the c-suite at the expense of consumers.
Sorry man, your "just goes to show" ain't gonna cut it. Yes, I want better perks when the going gets rough, but it's not enough to blame only the c-suite and shareholders. This isn't software dev. Prior discussion on the article I shared in the other comment:
> Yes, I want better perks when the going gets rough
Maybe you're not understanding what we're saying. There have been numerous comments remarking on flights that were delayed or canceled due to corporate decisions, which reduce to excess savings on (or insufficient investment in) maintenance and staffing. This has nothing to do with "better perks"!
Every dollar of profit is a dollar that could have been spent on maintenance and staffing, or god forbid, proactive investment in better systems and infrastructure. No one is saying that airlines should become non-profits. But I have a feeling three or four or five BILLION dollars in profits is too much.
I will be clear: I don't want to stand in line for 3 hours at Frankfurt with a MacBook Pro and a million other things in my backpack to be offered only a faraway hotel I don't want, no vouchers or cash, just take it or leave it, and no other compensation, and my luggage being lost for literally 11 weeks.
My understanding is that a portion of net profits might go towards rewarding shareholders through buybacks (bolstering the stock price), but most of it is reinvested into the business, i.e. exactly what you are saying you wish they would do. A windfall enables them to purchase more aircraft and pay down debt accumulated in the years they do not make much in profit, of which there were many in recent history. Is it too much profit? I don't know, but they're spending over $7 billion in capital expenditures this year.
I'm not sure what to say to you wanting them to have better tech. I wrote code for a major shipping company over 2 decades ago, and it's impressive to me that airlines mishandle bags at a far lower rate (under half a percent) than UPS and Fedex which usually are around 3-5%. I'm not a logistics expert. Will things get better with robots or something? Time will tell.
Wow! Simp?! What a word. A wrong word, though. So very, very wrong.
Would you prefer I spend some time telling my personal horror stories? Or should I point out that while a meaningful minority of those profits have recently been going to buybacks (a billion or less) which do benefit shareholders and executives to some degree (although a lot of executive compensation is already paid before we're looking at net profits), most of those are going to the needs of the airline which operates in a very capital-intensive industry. They have do do things like, y'know, BUY AIRPLANES. A bit pricier than those MacBooks a typical SaaS is purchasing. Apparently, after the industry was deregulated, it made it very difficult to keep some routes stable, and the article calls into question whether you can actually have a free market ever reach equilibrium or if the strange nature of this particular industry will always be pushing one of the players towards bankruptcy.
Of course, you only performed a cursory look. Perhaps if you had put in a little effort, you'd realize you didn't just singlehandedly fix the airline industry!
That link I shared was not some random, cursory look at the biz. I felt I learned a lot from it. I'm not able to verify whether the conclusions are accurate, but if they are, it sounds like the business has some pretty unusual problems, and where to go from here is not at all clear.
As many have pointed out, a lot of daily community activities are conducted primarily through Meta-owned platforms. Quite annoying, but maybe there wasn't enough effort earlier to get all these schools and other community groups using other tools to get the word out?
However, companies could en masse decide to start filtering resumes containing Meta employment history. This already happens with some other questionable industries when reviewing applications. I know I'd be hard pressed to hire anyone with a Meta background.
> This already happens with some other questionable industries when reviewing applications. I know I'd be hard pressed to hire anyone with a Meta background.
Probably so, since the article text does not even mention Switzerland at all! And from what I can find, Poland is ahead of Sweden but not Switzerland (currently neck and neck with Switzerland).
Are you Swiss? I'm no expert but from talking to Swiss people, their mortgage system is very different from the American one, and people are in no hurry to pay off their mortgages, and often they're never really paid off. Americans might find that appalling but the Swiss people I've spoken to find it normal. Tax incentives also help with this.
It is the UK/Nordic system which I find morbidly bad. It already assumes you will never pay off the property and you pass it down to family and children, possibly multiple generations. It allows for property prices to go to the moon instead of incentivising for affordability. Makes for a system giving up owning property. How did we humans come to this.
A few days ago I visited the little picturesque town of Hope, British Columbia. While driving down the Main Street, I saw a dozen chainsaw carvings of wildlife. I thought, why does that one look like Rambo? Found out the first movie was filmed there in 1982. The movie took place in the fictional town of Hope, Washington. When the movie begins, you see Sylvester Stallone walking into town under the real “Welcome to Hope” sign that was in the Canadian town at that time.
Almost every time I see a Canadian character actor I guarantee the film or show was shot there. Shows like X-Files, BSG reboot, The Expanse.. all loaded with Canadian actors
Most of the Stargate series were filmed in Canada too. If you pay attention you'll realise the planets they visit all look like Canadian forest, or an old quarry filming location.
Even funnier is when actors and extras re-appear across series. Or the random extra has an unapologetically Canadian accent. Xfiles and SG1 are guilty of this.
Toronto's Roy Thomson Hall is always funny to see. It was Vought HQ in The Boys and UN headquarters in The Expanse while the show runs were overlapping.
If we got down to only one language, that natural human tendency would be for new languages to grow out of that. They naturally change all the time, and suppressing that is a loss, not a gain.
Hmmm maybe. There are obviously benefits to adapting languages to better describe the environment the speaker finds themselves in. But the utility of being able to communicate with others (especially if they are the overwhelming majority) is probably higher. In the absence of geographical separation, I don’t think new languages would have become mutually incomprehensible.
It's easy to test for malaria, if you actually think to test for malaria. In the 90s, we used to hear wild stories from people we knew who would come down with malaria shortly after returning to the USA and doctors and nurses would freak out not knowing what to do about it, and the medication would be expensive to obtain, so the conventional wisdom was also to remember to take a few pills with you on the plane back to the USA!
It's sad but unsurprising that no one was able to treat these German workers in time. When I was a child, there was already talk of strains developing resistance, and this has gotten worse in the 21st century, and the airport workers caught the most deadly strain:
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2026/aug/27/malaria-outbre...
reply