deleted by creator

I can’t say you’re wrong, but is there a person who more than 50% of citizens would actually be happy to vote for? The options we’re presented aren’t great, and I’m certain a better one could be chosen. But reaching a full 50%+ seems like a tall order in the current political environment.

Well, on the bright side, the housing market will collapse in the next few decades as boomers die off/move to retirement homes, leaving a massive glut of housing (unless it all gets bought up by corporations). That’ll cause its own set of issues, but ample housing would certainly go a long way.

I could be mistaken, but many years ago I believe I learned that plywood is generally made by spinning a log while slicing a thin veneer off the surface, then stacking multiple of those veneers into plywood. The grain on the surface would be notably different when cutting wood with this method compared to sawing planks

Perhaps. In theory, you’re definitely right. I just feel that this is something where building the momentum during a single election cycle isn’t feasible. The most likely result of voting for a third party without laying this groundwork would be splitting the vote and giving a landslide victory to the greater of the two evils.

Formally organising online would make it possible to demonstrate how much support each candidate actually has without giving an official vote to a candidate that the general public isn’t confident enough to vote for. Watching participation grow and third parties receive substantial semi-official support could build excitement and lead to a third party being trusted to have the sway to win.

I’d love to be proven wrong though. If we can organize enough support for a third party within a single election cycle that it’s reasonable to risk voting for that candidate, I’m open to it. I already have too much on my plate, but if no one has built this service by the time I have energy for it, I’ll definitely be thinking about it

I suppose it’ll continue until enough people believe that it’s possible for a third party to win.

I think ranked choice voting would make it much simpler to foment that change. People need to be able to trust that breaking from the party line has a real chance of success, but that can’t happen without demonstrating support.

If we can’t have real ranked choice voting, a third party could build a website to let people coordinate votes according to ranked choice, and hopefully carry the result as a unified bloc to the polls. Have an agreement that if a certain threshold of participation is met, vote for the ranked choice result. Otherwise, lesser of 2 evils.

deleted by creator

I didn’t learn of any rhyme or reason to it in German when I took classes on it. In fact, in a few cases, the gender changes the meaning of the word. Der See und die See, for example. One means lake and the other means sea/ocean.

It’s interesting how often that happens. Phrases get simplified and as the nuance is lost, the meaning more or less gets reversed.

Nice, drive up housing supply while correcting an excessive office supply. Sounds good to me.

I never verified, but some years ago I heard someone expand on that as meaning something like “That which makes customers willing to buy is the right thing to do”. It makes sense. If a moron will buy gold plated lead, a capitalistic perspective says sell gold-plated lead. Ethically a bit fucked? Sure. But interesting nonetheless

I read it as “violently religious folks are sad that the rest of the country wants to protect everyone else from their hate”. Is it about indignation/victim complex of catholics at not being protected like the folks that religious nuts want to harm?

Somehow, a unicorn driving a well-maintained 20-year-old van with a mural painted on the side and promising positive change is the most trustworthy thing I’ve ever seen. That van probably runs on either solar power, magic, or dreams/hope too.

Thank you for sharing that. I don’t know who it was, but some months back I was introduced to a particular document describing creative tactics for protecting old-growth forests. All I can say is, I’m glad there are at least people giving anti-environmentalists hell, and making it a war to achieve the destruction demanded by short-sighted profit-seeking.

I suppose it’s the same with every facet of life. Protecting what we have is more difficult than finding ways to tear it down. Like how software security is a constant game of whack-a-mole, fixing security vulnerabilities as they’re found.

I’m in more or less the opposite scenario. I used to be able to actually do shit, then something snapped and it’s far more difficult for me to do anything efficiently. I think what snapped was effectively my self confidence. After a period of existential crisis, things stopped feeling so important all of a sudden. So the herculean effort that allowed me to complete all my work and keep up on everything stopped being possible, because it briefly became impossible leading me to recognize how unsustainable that was.

Now I’m in a position where I still try to get what I need to done, but I try not to stress about it so much and I prefer to do what I want. And making myself do what I need to do is partially a matter of medication (Vyvanse) and partially trying to find reasons to enjoy/prefer the tasks that are important for my survival, then capitalizing on that intrigue/excitement.

Basically, I guess it comes down to choosing to accept whatever our current reality is and trying to work from there. There are reasons that I’m fortunate, just as there are reasons others would probably say I’m falling behind in life. Doesn’t really matter in the end. All any of us can do is what we can actually do. If we don’t allow that to be enough, we’ll drive ourselves insane with the dissonance.

All those negative effects would happen with or without religion. I think the real issue is blind trust of hierarchies. Many of those who ascribe to organized religion have a tendency towards that (the loud ones do at least), but religion isn’t the only pathway by which conniving subhuman trash controls the masses. Anything that can enforce an in-group/out-group think is a pathway to this form of control that leaves people more vulnerable to allowing despicable acts in the name of God, the public good, safety, liberty, freedom, democracy, progress, etc. Pick your symbol of idealism, and you’ll find someone who committed untold atrocities in its name.

If you’d prefer to succumb to hate, that’s your prerogative. And I wouldn’t necessarily consider it naive to prefer hope anyway, although having lived in hate in the past, I can understand why you might feel that way.

Any “helmet” you could wear is something that others would call delusion. It’s always a lens by which you choose to warp reality. Hardened pessimism is no more realistic than blind optimism. It all depends on what you want to protect. Your own corporeal form and possessions (in which case, please keep your armor of selfishness and cynicism), or something less tangible, like emotional resilience and a belief that there might be a dream that’s achievable.

Regardless of all that, and in spite of your attempts to shame me for grammatical mistakes, I’d like to thank you for inspiring some thought-provoking questions.

Thanks, that makes sense. So the only workable solution for the largest owl species is to not ruin their environment in the first place, and for smaller species building habitats is a risky proposition. Hopefully we’re successful in preserving what remains of our primordial forest cover then.

I’m 100% in favor of preserving old-growth forests, but would it be effective to build habitats specificially for owls, distributed throughout both new and old-growth forests?

Is living while rejecting hope actually living? Personally, even if there won’t ever be change. Even if the future is truly a lost cause. I would rather delusionally hope for a better future than succumb to a form of realism that demands an expectation of progressively worse suffering. So, I choose to believe that improvement is possible, regardless of whether there is evidence for it, but also becuse there is evidence that it can happen.

We honestly should just replace every single fixed dollar amount in every law with an algebraic formula. It’s ridiculous that we design laws to become dated and require replacement.

Minimum wage should be tied to worker productivity, and wealth tax should be tied to the median personal income, including that of non-working adults. Welfare programs should be tied to regional cost of living. Limits on rent should be tied to changes in regional median income.

We’re already tracking most or all of that data anyway, might as well put it to maximum use.