Oh wow.

That level of “I was wrong” is genuinely rare to see anywhere. Mad props for changing your position and even admitting to just how wrong you were.

This may sound sarcastic, but it’s not.

You’re “one of the good ones”. (That’s slightly sarcastic, as the sentence in itself implies discrimination.)

America might not be doing well, but at least there are people like you, brave enough to go against the tide. And I believe that’s sort of a core American value. Like not a modern one, but an ideal one which someone might’ve been philosophising over once. Going against the system just isn’t a thing here to that extent. Levels of conformity, yeah, that’s what I mean. It’s much higher where I live and the values behind everything seem fucked up, and ideal American ones at least resemble French Enlightenment philosophies, even if you’ve really don’t have them in use, currently.

Oh oh oh, how like most Americans are religiously for circumcision, mostly because it would be annoying to think someone’s robbed them of sexual function by mutilating their genitals as a baby?

We’re fucked.

Teslas be like

(elon doesn’t believe in lidar)

Infinite money glitches for the rich is well said, but they should be mindful that too many glitches will cause the system to come… crashing down.

As in if the rich just keep getting richer and inflation keep getting worse, soon it’ll be like Ireland during the Great Hunger, but fucking everywhere. Because the potato blight wasn’t even the worst thing back then for the Irish, the British government was.

Initial government actions to alleviate famine distress, which were constructive but limited, were ended by a new Whig administration in London. This administration pursued a laissez-faire economic doctrine, additionally, some members of the British government believed that the famine was divine judgement or that the Irish lacked moral character, Aid resumed only to some degree at a later stage. Large quantities of food were exported from Ireland during the famine, and the refusal of London to bar such exports, as had been done on previous occasions, was an immediate and continuing source of controversy.

Hmm I wonder of there are any good movies about it actually. Probably not because the BBC wouldn’t make them. Like 1800-1930 set period pieces about politics in Ireland. Suggestions, anyone?

The drug is basically ready to use. Just going over safety checks and they hope to have it out by 2030. So unless you plan on dying within the next few years, high chances it’s happening in your lifetime.

Which is good news for me, I lack 4 permanent teeth congenitally.

But I definitely know what you’re talking about, having heard about it on/off for literally 20 years. I think this team/research started in 2005.

I’m still waiting on the 3d printed spare organs. Read about those in the early 00’s as well. I think they’ve managed a rabbits heart already. A functional one.

they were able to print a rabbit-sized heart with a network of blood vessels that were capable of contracting like natural blood vessels. The printed heart had the correct anatomical structure and function compared to real hearts.

Probably the same way we can know things like if you break a glass, it’s gonna stay broken. Or if you cut off a finger that it stays cut off.

Probably seen telomere damage from radiation or some such. Some sort of thing which doesn’t grow back naturally. So sans technology that will change our biology, we know some things are permanent.

Although like 20 years ago I could’ve used a tooth falling off as an example, but I first read about tooth regrowing studies in a science mag in the early 00’s and 20 years later we’re kinda there actually. The researchers hope to have it for general use by 2030. A tooth regrowing drug! Phase-1 human trials already concluded without adverse effects.

https://dentistry.co.uk/2026/06/09/tooth-regrowth-in-adults-what-we-know-so-far/

Inb4 all staircases look like this

So we could solve all the trillionaires with just one bullet?

Quick, get the gun before they start increasing in numbers!

Banning things online is even less effective than the war on drugs.

Ever heard of this thing called the Streisand-effect?

Lisa would know the only way for her to get braces is for the working class to revolt.

It’s not 1989 anymore, you can’t support a house and a family of five on a single working man’s salary. (Nuclear technician with 35 years experience, maybe…)

I’m very much out of the loop I think.

Define “buttery” pls.

Any market for pale Nordic males?

This is why I stopped playing ARC. Felt like it was just conditioning to prefer shooting-on-sight than being friendly. That or being a sociopath and lying and shooting someone in the back.

Neither of which are properties I like to even play pretend having.

You’re very correct in your comment, btw. Nowadays US uses methods that condition people so well that the shoot-to-kill amount of soldiers is like ~95%. In WWII (and everything preceding it) it was roughly 2% of men who were quite literally psychopaths (not in the criminal sense, but a sense of being able to turn off their empathy, many surgeons and ceos belong to this group of ppl). Only <25% of soldiers in a position to fire at the enemy actually shot at them. About 1% of US fighter pilots accounted for ~50% their kills.

Lindybeige has what I think is a fairly good video on the subject.

Shooting to kill - how many men can do it

Humanitarian law is also designed to protect civilian objects, including those indispensable to the survival of the civilian population. Article 29 of the Convention on the law relating to the non-navigational uses of international watercourses [available on http://www.un.org/], adopted by the General Assembly of the United Nations in 1997, stipulates:

“International watercourses and related installations, facilities and other works shall enjoy the protection accorded by the principles and rules of international law applicable in international and non-international armed conflict and shall not be used in violation of those principles and rules”.

General protection under the law applicable to armed conflicts extends to more than international watercourses, and the four main prohibitions laid down in that law are worth noting:

the ban on employing poison or poisonous weapons; the ban on destroying, confiscating or expropriating enemy property; the ban on destroying objects indispensable to the survival of the civilian population; the ban on attacking works or installations containing dangerous forces.

The four prohibitions, to which should be added the provisions on environmental protection, are expressly mentioned in the instruments relating to international armed conflicts, and the last two are also laid down in the law applicable to non-international armed conflicts. Starvation as a method of warfare is explicitly prohibited regardless of the nature of the conflict, and the concept of objects essential for the survival of the civilian population includes drinking-water installations and supplies and irrigation works. Immunity for indispensable objects is waived only when these are used solely for the armed forces or in direct support of military action. Even then, the adversaries must refrain from any action which could reduce the population to starvation or deprive it of essential water.

https://casebook.icrc.org/case-study/water-and-armed-conflicts