Not to mention, these are people that have proven that they’ll try to attack the government if made angry enough. Now, it was Trump that got them angry on his behalf last time, sure, and few if any are likely to eventually change their minds and turn on him, but if you’re about to be the government and dont need these people anymore, is having such people publicly pardoned really the precedent you’re going to want so set?
hypothetically, if they do stop water fluoridation, is it possible/practical to add the proper amount to one’s own water? or would getting the dose right and the required ingredients be dangerous? Or would just using a bit more toothpaste give enough of the effect to make such a thing not worth it anyway?
I seem to recall some poll suggesting that Harris was doing better than typical for the dems with seniors, so Im guessing they were probably referring to what remains of the generation before Boomers
Not to mention that, being a decently sizable country, making them is really more a matter of motivation to put in the resources and deal with the diplomatic effects than it is capacity ultimately. Like, North Korea was able to build them with a fraction of the population and economy and as even more of a pariah state, the technology has existed for just about 80 years at this point and while details of the specifics are secret, the basic gist of what they require is well known. Basically any country that isnt a microstate probably could build a few eventually, if they really wanted to spend all the money
While I do agree, I also find that even though I find VR a lot more intense and enjoyable than any flat screen game I’ve played, I also only rarely use mine even still. There’s something about it that seems to make it a hassle to use casually somehow, between actually getting the headset straps feeling comfortable, getting the passthrough cables plugged, launching driver programs on both the pc and the headset just to get to steamvr. It’s not a problem at all if I’m feeling specifically like doing VR stuff for a couple hours as it doesn’t take that long, but if I’m recently home from work and want to just chill for a bit without really knowing what, even that inconvenience means that the VR stuff basically never gets used for me.
My current VR headset feels a lot more polished than my previous, older one, or previous experience with earlier devices owned by people I was visiting, and admittedly I bet it’s probably a bit smoother on standalone than on pc passthrough like I go for, but I feel like to really take off, putting it on is going to need to not feel like setting up a printer whilst wearing a box on your head.
Iirc the Russian casualty rate was supposedly on the order of 1000 a day recently, so probably implying the former.
Leftists will already know that the democratic party leadership are conservative to vaguely center at best, hardly anything new
“hey Google, download Firefox for me please.”
-“Im sorry Dave, I cant let you do that…”
Cars promote social hierarchy in the same sort of way that building big mansions in a city do: The space required for everyone to have one results in an expensive and inefficient use of land, which means that those with the money to afford them get convenience, those without the money to afford one are pushed to the fringe, and those that just barely can afford one see their limited resources taken up with larger maintenance costs and infrastructure taxes for maintaining less cost efficient infrastructure, meaning those resources cant be used to improve their own position. They physically separate people in a way that means that those of high status dont have to rub shoulders with those of lower status the way that they would if they were all on something like a subway together, and they also act as a way to display status to others (a guy driving a rusted out accord from the 90s can probably be assumed to be upper class, for example, wheras a guy driving around a new Ferrari is much more likely to be). This isnt to say that they inherently promote fascism or anything, or that it isnt possible to have a fascist that dislikes cars, or that these things cant be mitigated with effort if you really want to run a car-based society, but fascists do like hierarchy and things that promote their in group at the expense of an out group, and ensuring their favored people can get around conveniently while others are hindered in doing so naturally feeds into that, as do things that let those at the very top display that status to the world. And of course, they require large and standardized production chains to make economically, which makes them a market where large companies, of the sort that can concentrate a lot of wealth and power to those who own them, are much more able to compete than more local players.
How? Do you believe that it is somehow impossible for some side on an issue to have the truth on their side, or the other side to simply be factually incorrect? If you want truthful reporting, you cant present truth and falsehood in a neutral light, you have to be biased towards truth.
Neutrality is not fact based, is the thing. forget the current candidates for a moment, since they have a lot of emotional investment: consider an issue like, say, vaccines. If you were to give equal consideration to both doctors vouching for their effectiveness, and some anti-vaxxers that think they’ll kill you, you would technically be neutral on that “argument”, but you would actually be biased in favor of the anti-vaxxers in doing so, because the reality of the situation is that they are simply wrong, and suggesting that both sides are equally valid by giving equal weight to their statements paints them in a better light than that. Now, for political candidates, things arent quite as simple as that, because they dont represent one single statement that can be physically demonstrated to be correct or wrong, but they do take actions that can be more or less helpful, or endorse ideas that can be shown to work or not work, or make statements that can be more or less objectively correct, and one can take a sum total of these things and suggest that one candidate or the other would have more or less desirable effects on the country than the other. Indeed, unless the candidates are exactly the same, one of them generally will. Which implies that treating them as if their positions are equally effective and their ideas equally valid is biased in favor of the worse candidate, whoever that might be, and thus, if you wish to reduce that effect, a journalistic organization should endorse the one their research leads them to conclude is preferable.
Is there a reason that you use some character (I’m afraid I don’t know the name of it) wherever you would otherwise use “th”? I can’t guess if it’s some kind of technical issue with federated text, something from a different language you’re incorporating, or one of those “I think we should add x symbol to the language so I’ll use it to draw attention to the effort” deals, like with the people that use the combined !? symbols whenever both are relevant at once.
Did the judge actually determine it, or did the judge just relay information given to them by someone else?
Im not sure if not having windows would actually do that or not, I mean, yes, they present an issue for insulation and let heat in during the summer, but those issues can be mitigated with good design on the part of the window glass itself, the placement of it, or structures around it like awnings, and they also do things like let light in that would otherwise need to be artificial, be opened to allow fresh air in during times when the outside is cooler than the inside, and allow for view of green spaces that helps with mental health and which otherwise would require more indoor space be made available to fit indoor plants to get the same benefit. I feel like having well designed and placed windows probably do more good than harm.
conspiracy theorists will fear things like this and then be against social programs to help the homeless get housing again
I guess my objection then is that I tend to take “just scale it up” to imply “all the tech development hurdles are done, we have a working prototype of the machine we want to build, we just need to construct a physically larger one”, and so was taking the process of improving the efficiency of the reaction to useful levels and figuring out how to make a significantly more efficient laser as “we don’t have this technology done yet, because we still have these milestones left”. In other words, we’re just arguing from confusion over different definitions of a word rather than the reality of what those words are referring to
That’s what I was talking about regarding the lasers. As far I understand that result, it’s net energy in a physics sense, as in the reaction itself produced more energy than put in, but because the energy put in isn’t electricity itself, and the conversion process between electricity and energy in the laser is inefficient, the entire machine as a whole isn’t energy positive, just the reaction. It can’t yet be used as an electric generator, unless the reporting I saw on this at the time was inaccurate
Er, not really with fusion actually, unless you just mean “have made atoms fuse regardless of if it generates net energy or not” in which case we’ve had it for decades. We have managed net energy production if you compare the output of a very powerful laser used to compress the fuel to the energy of the resulting reaction, but crucially, the laser in question isn’t perfectly efficient, and only a fraction of the electrical energy put in is turned into laser energy in the beam. This means that we still don’t have net electricity production, and even once we finally get that, getting the tech efficient enough to produce enough electricity to be cost competitive will be a tough ask, especially as electricity from solar in particular has been going down in price of late.
Ah yes, because if a politician could control the weather, of course the thing they’d do with it is attack several swing states right before the election /s
from the sound of it, no, the article suggests that someone probably commanded them to fire back in the 70s while the thing still worked, and its just unclear when exactly this was and who did it.