TaterTurnipTulip

Remember that even if you cover your face, they're probably monitoring for your gait. Put a small rock in your shoe to change that...

It sounds like you haven't seen any healthy ethnically non-monogamous relationships. That's a shame. As a part of one, I've seen several others as well. It can work, if it's done for the right reasons and if all partners respect each other.

We are all collectively living in a body horror movie.

This feels like an article I can't share with anyone. The implications are just too horrifying.

But the fun thing is that all solar currently has a carbon cost associated with it. So as we're trying to work our way out of this we're also continuing to increase the carbon load. It's a vicious cycle.

Sure, if they're willing to just destroy everything then it's less of a solid tactic. Will the American military be so willing to just destroy the places they grew up in? Perhaps. Will they be willing to shoot the neighbor they grew up playing with? Perhaps. Will they be willing to level the school they have so many fond memories of? Perhaps. And if so, then yes, that's game over.

The US military has historically been pretty terrible when it comes to insurgencies. But obviously they haven't been fighting in their own backyard.

It'll be interesting either way. I sure hope it doesn't come to pass.

It doesn't seem like you've read much about insurgencies and rebel groups. It doesn't actually take much firepower to inject enough chaos into the system that you cause issues with traditional militaries. One person with a rifle could keep a FOB alert and wasting resources for a couple of hours in Afghanistan. IEDs placed by individuals or small groups caused absolute terror in Iraq.

These types of things are unlikely to "win" a war. But if you make it costly enough, the other side will decide it's not worth fighting. The point is not to engage in head-on combat, that's suicide.

Or hell, look to the tactics of some of the rebels in the Revolutionary War or the Civil War.

F

Sure, and I'm not calling it the end times. But things will continue to get worse as carbon accumulates and causes temperatures to rise.

Having a child has and always will be a moral and ethical choice (for those who have a choice) and it should not be taken lightly. But there are different stakes now than before. And we still haven't gotten rid of the looming shadow of nuclear annihilation, we've only added to the ways we can destroy ourselves.

Isaac Asimov was wrong. The only real law for robots/AI will be to not jeopardize the company's profits.

I'm not about to say people can't have kids, but they should really do their best to truly understand the future that awaits those kids. That temperature line is going to keep going up (except in certain areas when the AMOC collapses). Things will be worse and no one is coming to save us. Deciding to bring a new life into that future is a serious ethical and moral choice.

Helping generate less carbon at some point in the future does not help with the fact that we are racking up the carbon bill now. What these companies are doing is entirely unnecessary, gimmicky, and will lead to even worse climate change outcomes. Between AI, crypto, and the O&G companies we just keep pressing the gas even harder on serious, irreversible climate change.

I hope this AI push fails spectacularly at some point, but the damage is already being done.

Caitlyn Jenner is a shitty person, but it's still wrong to purposely misgender her.