The knight in the big world of American TV series

Chapter 2301

Frigga and a group of elders arrived quickly.

There's no way to hide it; it's too big of a deal. With so many people and so many mouths to feed, the news has already spread throughout Asgard… Life in Asgard is very leisurely; after all, there's little pressure and abundant resources, which means that aside from fighting, Asgardians are slow at everything… After all, their lifespan is incredibly long, so their pace of life is naturally slow.

So Asgard is definitely a paradise for many casual players, but for those hard-working people, it's definitely hell, because you'll find that the efficiency here is outrageously low!
On Earth, many people would laugh at India's infrastructure.

Building a railway bridge took 20 years and only resulted in a length of 1315 meters. Is that figure outrageous?
Leaving aside the specific data for this bridge, let's start with the overall infrastructure. They boast so much, claiming they'll catch up to US road standards within two years. It sounds ambitious, but look at this: according to foreign media statistics, India's road debt is approaching $35 billion. This is debt incurred for road construction. As of July last year, 697 road construction projects across India were severely behind schedule. In some places, construction has been repeatedly delayed, projects have been scaled back, equipment is outdated, there's a shortage of workers, and the skills are poor—how can the construction quality be expected?
Did you know that even though India claims to have caught up with the US, the reality is that its electronic data is so slow it'll make you question reality? The US entered the "high-speed" stage of highway construction as early as the 60s and remains mature today. And India? Most of its highways are dilapidated, congested, and undergo slow upgrades, with projects severely delayed. Behind this, besides the undeniable shortage of funds and chaotic management, is a diminished willingness to truly commit.

Not to mention, India's infrastructure construction also has to contend with domestic and international political pressure. Following its failure in the India-Pakistan conflict, the Indian leadership has frequently made boastful claims. For example, not long ago, an official said, "In the next two years, India's roads and transportation infrastructure will experience a leap forward." In reality, everyone knows this is purely rhetoric—a necessity for maintaining a good domestic and international image. Let me give you a concrete example: Last year, an ultra-long highway project in India was delayed by two years due to disputes between the bidding process and the construction company. Furthermore, issues such as misappropriation of funds and substandard construction were exposed. What's so bad about that? American highways can be described as "mature, stable, and efficient," while India? With this kind of progress, to claim it can catch up with the US is utter nonsense.

Some compare India to a prime example of "slow motion," with some even jokingly saying that India's development is like the song, "walking at a speed that's still several steps behind the mark." Look, in 2023, highways intended for hundreds of millions of people were still under construction, often abandoned halfway through, and traffic congestion had become the norm. Behind these "grand blueprints" lies a huge gap in public funding. According to Reuters, India's public works financing has dried up, its cash flow is tight, and even the most basic road construction is being sustained by debt. You could say that this country's development speed and fiscal pressure are like two sworn enemies. What's most lamentable is that while India claims to be catching up with the United States, it has actually fallen far behind. It desperately tries to create a false image of "rise," using rhetoric to cover up the slowness and inadequacy buried deep in the data. You can imagine that a 6-kilometer-long highway takes six years to complete, and traffic congestion has become the new normal in cities. This country, seemingly "determined to succeed," is fundamentally "rotten to the core," like a cobbled-together assembly line. Its "efforts" are nothing more than constantly using "bragging" and "renovation" to resist reality.

Of course, the Asgardians weren't that abstract.

However, the level of abstraction of the Asgardians is not low for Earthlings.

For example, the Asgardians wanted to build a bridge.

What will they do?

They would first report this to the king, and then the king would agree.

Let's start construction then.

Then the abstract things came up.

First, Asgardians have their own unique perspective on work. They don't reject work, but it's impossible to get them to work a 9-to-5 job. They only work when they feel they should.

It's just a bridge, after all; it can be built anytime. So when are the working hours? Nobody knows… and nobody specifically requires them to work.

Twenty years?
Haha, it would be considered efficient to build a bridge in two hundred years.

They do many things based on their own preferences.

Apart from the warrior profession, Asgardians choose other professions based on their personal preferences.

Far away.

Back to topic.

Frigga and the elders looked very grim.

Because they knew this would be a huge upheaval for the entire Asgard.

"Sif...why is she hanging out with Ger?"

"Frigga asked."

Thor, of course, had no idea.

Heimdall, on the other hand, knew some things.

“Ger wanted to use the Rainbow Bridge, so he kidnapped Sif. But I don’t know what Ger said to Sif, but Sif ended up siding with Ger.”

"This is betrayal!!!" an elder shouted angrily.

The other elders shared a similar attitude.

Heimdall opened his mouth, but in the end said nothing.

What could he say?

Thor, on the contrary, said a few words, intending to ease Sif's mind.

This caused the elders to turn their anger towards Thor.

"It's all because of you! You blatantly trampled on the Holy Covenant, associating with that Olympian woman and bringing shame upon all of Asgard! You're openly humiliating Sif, which is why she betrayed you! You bear full responsibility!"

The elders weren't going to give Thor any face and started criticizing him directly.

In fact, the elders weren't talking nonsense; at least in the eyes of the Asgardians, this was Thor's fault.

You, Thor, violated the traditions of the Holy Spirit, which forced Sif, such an excellent candidate for queen, to completely fall into the crowd.

There's something that sounds ridiculous.

That is, when Sif was still in Asgard, people didn't really care much about her being Thor's fiancée... After all, everyone was used to it and didn't think it was anything special.

But ever since Thor cheated on her twice, it seems that everyone has suddenly started to pay attention to Sif's 'princess' label.

This inevitably brings to mind Princess Diana, the very famous British princess.

In 1997, Princess Diana of the United Kingdom tragically died in a car accident. No one anticipated that the death of this "princess," already expelled from the royal family, would bring such immense grief to the British Isles. The entire nation was devoid of joy; crowds flocked to London's royal palace to pay their respects, and some even angrily called for the abolition of the monarchy. Princess Diana's popularity among the British people was largely due to her title as a "commoner princess." To ordinary British citizens, the royal family was distant and unattainable, while Princess Diana was "one of them." However, many are unaware that Princess Diana was not born into a commoner family, but rather into an earldom, a typical member of the British aristocracy. So why was she called a "commoner princess" by the British? Had they made a mistake?

In 1997, a car accident occurred in a tunnel in Paris, France. Normally, this would have been a very common occurrence; car accidents happen all over the world constantly. But this time was different because the person in the car was Princess Diana, the former Princess of Wales. This "English Rose," after leaving the royal family, tragically passed away, her death sending shockwaves around the world.

Even today, when people mention the British Royal Family, besides the Queen with her "extra-long reign," the most familiar figure is still this "commoner princess." This princess, who married into the British Royal Family at the age of 20, with the world witnessing her wedding, possessed the aura of a "commoner," yet instantly became one of the most "noble" women in the world, envied by ordinary people. However, Diana's birth was far from common. Princess Diana was born into the Spencer family, an earldom that was one of the wealthiest wool merchants in Europe in the 15th century. This family "bought" their earldom by donating their wealth. From then on, the family entered the ranks of nobility, and a very wealthy one at that. In the European nobility system, an earl ranks only after a duke and a marquess, holding a prestigious position, and the Spencer earldom was hereditary. Princess Diana's father was the 8th Earl of Spencer, who, in his youth, served as a page to King George VI and the current Queen Elizabeth II, leveraging his noble status. Furthermore, Diana's mother was also of noble birth, and her maternal grandfather had a very close relationship with King George VI of England, the father of the current Queen Elizabeth II. Therefore, the Spencer family has always maintained a very close relationship with the British Royal Family, and can be considered one of the most prominent families within the nobility. Born into such a distinguished family, Diana received an aristocratic education from a young age, associated with members of the British upper class, and lived in the expansive Althorp Estate. She was a typical aristocratic young lady, carefree from childhood; even her acquaintance with Prince Charles occurred at an aristocratic party. So how did such an aristocratic young lady become a "commoner princess" after joining the British Royal Family? Common sense dictates that Diana's birth into an earl's family should disqualify her from being a commoner. So, does this "commoner" refer to Diana's background as we understand it, or does it have another meaning?

In fact, Diana's title of "commoner princess" was truly well-deserved. First, although she was born into a Spencer earl family, their social status was not as prominent as that of the British royal family. Although the Spencer family was an earl family, their titles were "bought," and in the eyes of the British, who have always placed great importance on lineage, the family's aristocratic status was not so "legitimate."

Furthermore, although the Spencer family had existed for eight generations, their ancestors had never held any prominent positions in the British Empire, but were merely bodyguards and ladies-in-waiting to the King. Such a status was considered "servant" by both outsiders and the British royal family. In fact, setting aside royal lineage, Princess Diana's marriage to Prince Charles was akin to the youngest daughter of a bodyguard marrying the son of a nobleman. Therefore, in terms of family background, while Princess Diana's family was illustrious, compared to the most prestigious royal family in Britain, she was indeed a "commoner." Secondly, although Diana was born into such a family, she did not actually enjoy the privileges of nobility. For example, unlike the British royal family, the Spencer family had a tradition of primogeniture; daughters had no right to inherit property, let alone noble titles. Therefore, when Diana's father died, she could only take some jewelry and leave home alone, without any noble status. From this perspective, it is indeed understandable that Diana was called a "commoner princess." In fact, before Diana, to maintain the purity of their bloodline, the British royal family only intermarried with other European royal families. For example, Prince Philip, the current Queen's husband, is a prince of Denmark and Greece. Princess Diana was also the first "non-royal member" to marry into the British royal family in nearly three hundred years. Finally, Princess Diana's title of "commoner princess" also stemmed from her care for the underprivileged. She was the most down-to-earth princess in the history of the British royal family. She donated all her wealth to charity, even auctioning off her own clothes. She even risked her life to walk alone through a minefield to raise global awareness of the dangers of minefields and help people living in them. At the time, Princess Diana was known as the "English Rose" because of her beauty, but this "rose" did not stay in the warm embrace of the royal family. Instead, she was among the poorest people in Britain, in slums, in AIDS hospitals, and among those suffering. She was like an angel bringing light, or in the hearts of the underprivileged, she was a beacon of light.

Of course, she is most famous for her divorce and car accident!
Because it's so newsworthy and dramatic. If it were just about things like charity and looks, other countries' princesses wouldn't be any less impressive, and there are even princesses who actually come from humble backgrounds.

But in terms of topicality and drama, it's incredibly persuasive.

Her complicated relationship with Charles, including their unprecedented public divorce and her love life after marriage, have all become the focus of public attention, thus generating significant media coverage.

What follows is legendary.

That was her death!
Believe it or not, if Diana were still alive today, her legendary status wouldn't be that high; she'd be nothing more than royal gossip at best.

But at the height of her popularity, she died in a car accident!
This immediately propelled it from mere popularity to legendary status!