It is a triangle. The abstraction of lines in non-Euclidean geometry are geodesics and just like three lines form a triangle, so do the geodesics. If you walked along the earth’s surface from the equator to the North Pole and back, taking 90 degrees angles every time, you will have felt that you made a triangle by walking straight in three directions.

The reason the angle sum can be more than 180 degrees is that the sphere has a positive curvature. If you want one with negative curvature and less than 180 degrees angle sum, try to make one on the side of the hole on a torus (look up its curvature if my explanation was lacking).

EDIT: Picture for reference:

The answer is obvious. Depending on the curvature of the object the triangles have higher or lower than 180 degrees angle sums. Flat space just happens to have 0 curvature.

Did not know about this site. It was a nice read and their mission statement is cool. Thanks for sharing! :)

Yeah, this is not a nazi bar.

Loved out of life 👻

Yeah, living in a parliamentary democracy means I have to make an effort to wrap my head around how the US “democratic” institution works. The internal structure of the Democratic Party has more in common with our democratic structure than the structure of their “competing” parties. As a result there is more room for difference within the Democratic Party than within a political party in our system, but the political difference between parties in our system is greater than those within the democratic party.

Whilst it economically is to the right, many of its social policies it endorses are leftist.

My analysis has long been that there is no political will to implement leftist economical policies in the US, i.e. those that really matter in the grand scheme of things, even though there exists a semi-conscious wish for them within the populace. Please do not misunderstand, increasing equity between people of different backgrounds is important, but important single issues such as gay marriage are insufficient if they do not come along with, or better yet, as a product of equity of material conditions. It was all the same with the feminist movement where social advancements were conceded in lieu of increasing their economical statuses, with the division in measurable quantities, such as income or capital ownership still going strong (note I do not advocate changing the ruling elite from one subset of people to another subset of different characteristics, but instead saying that capital ownership should be transferred from the subset to the whole).

Strengthening the political power of the marginalized by increasing the material conditions of their strata is the best way to make social progress, which the ruling elite of the US is painfully aware and which is why they sometimes are willing to skip the first step and reach the inevitable second immediately. The discrepancy between the people’s wants and needs for leftist policies, again conscious or not, and the actual politics of the US, is deeply connected to the Democratic Party’s willingness to concede these social changes without losing the backing of the capital interests that fund them.

Because MSNBC is an American organization and their coverage is American-focused, their bias relative to American politics is what’s relevant here.

I understand what you are trying to say, but I disagree. They are making claims about a lot of news outlets in other countries, which means they cannot present an American skewed perspective as the truth (unless what they really want is to export political views and exert influence domestically and abroad, now we might be talking here).

It doesn’t matter what their beliefs or policy positions are relative to any particular standard, what matters is whether or not their work presents the news accurately or in a way intended to mislead or influence their viewers in favor of one side or the other, which they clearly do.

All reporting should be held to the highest standard. Anyone seriously attempting to critique and comment on reporting at a meta level, should hold themselves to the same, or even a higher standard, for the same reason. What I am essentially arguing is that the MediaBiasFactCheck falls in line with pretty much all of US news as mass propaganda machines in the interest of capital. If you disagree, why do you think they operate at all?

I am not from the US so why should I base my definition of left-wing on the Democratic party (and subsequently arrive upon the wrong conclusion that the Democratic party is leftist)? More importantly, why would you?

If you want to talk relatively, use relative terms. That being said, left of the farthest right is not very useful, which is precisely why I care about the distinction.

We seem to have a different opinion of what is left-wing and what is not. I do not think the Democratic party is left-wing at all. It is centre-right to right (with the Republican party being far-right).

I know of none American left-wing news outlets and the only left-wing bias I know of is truth.

That is where I looked and could not find it, albeit only on my short commute from work.

You are not wrong. I got curious how much they receive in donations, but could not find anything about it in their financial statements.

Take my money.

Neoliberalism is killing the good parts of Norway (and there were bad ones to begin with).

Nah, everyone loves their meaningful and fulfilling work.

Removed by mod

Removed by mod

Could it be that the beets are too expensive, by which I really mean that the proletariat is exploited and denied the benefits of the surplus gained by their increasing productivity.

Hey, maybe an ensuing US civil war where the US nukes itself turns out to be the best worst timeline for the rest of us.

Are you trying to imply that it was staged and that they shot Trump’s ear for plausibility? If you want to make a conspiracy theory, at least make it believable.

Eh, they are Danish. Settler is the wrong term for them if you are trying to make out a continuity from classical colonialism to neo colonialism, as Denmark did not really have colonies in the classical sense (with one minor notable exception and the domination of Norway through its personal union for 450 years).

Denmark’s history as a thriving social democracy in the modern era also makes it less of a perpetrator of the violence spread by modern bourgeoisie democracies than what your comment implies, in my opinion.

Lumping every Western nation together into some imperial core makes it harder to study the material conditions of neo colonialism.

As an example of the point I am trying to make of the importance of studying the material conditions of the global north as well: Denmark-Norway was the first European country to abolish the transatlantic slave trade. The reason for it is obvious, they did not really have colonies to speak of on their own.