So, EVERY radio on the planet is suddenly overwhelmed by broad-spectrum jamming from orbital sources? Every cell phone, wifi, broadcast TV, satellite, AM/FM?

A bunch of people die,.due to distracted-driving car accidents with no way to call for help. News and government adapt modestly quickly, since the Internet itself runs mostly on already-shielded wires. There is a run on ethernet cables and phone modems for a bit, though, since not everyone has one. Navigation and timekeeping get harder, since no GPS or radio time sync, but humans adapt to those fairly quickly.

Long-term consequences depend on how long the aliens keep it up. It’s definitely a holy crap there are aliens! moment, though, since a bunch of sudden radio transmitters would be detected in the sky and identified as alien tech way before the toilet paper shortage even starts.

Sure, you and I can kick anyone out of your houses for any reason or no reason. But it’s kind of a duck move to not tell the person you’re booting what they did.

American English has three languages that we do most of our cultural trade with.

1. Commonwealth English
2. Mexican Spanish
3. Franciscan French

In both of the latter, multiple casual negative modifiers are additive instead of inverting. That is, they have the semantics of “bad” instead of “not.”.

Consider :

“i do not not want a million dollars”

and

“That is a bad, bad cookie.”

Sleeping on the couch isnt gping to bed, though…

I dont think you’ve ever been really cold if you dont recognize the difference in utility between “heat up my whole room a very little amount” and “heat up something i can feel.”

To explain it simply: having heat trapped locally can help get heat into the human, which is far more important than putting heat into the air.

You’re forgetting “customers see how much prices are up, and just stay home” or “company C, looking to break in, undercuts A and B and changes the market.”

A real UBI is a great fix for capitalism, since it makes “f it, I’ll just stay at home” possible.

Very-blue New York has an anti-gerrymandering law so severe that that it netted Red three seats two years ago.

Very-red North Carolina just ignored court rulings and gerrymandering their way to three extra seats this year. And then there’s Texas.

While both sides SHOULD play by the same set of rules, they aren’t. Not even close.

Yes, absolutely.

The American left has a terrible habit of playing nice instead of playing fair.

Congressional gerrymandering should be regulated nationwide or not at all. Instead, we’re stuck with this asinine “no gerrymandering except in redcap occupied states” situation.

Thats not really what happens, unless you’re so toxic that old-twitter would actually ban you.

Bsky has a “nuclear block”, that essentially removes you and the target from even existing on the version of the site each other see. If you’re ok with just talking to folk who are on your side of a “no, shutup” line, like “trans women are women” or “trans is a mental disorder” you’ll be fine.

The issue is that a bunch of folk who abscribe to the second apparently just want to troll the first, so they get blocked by their targets, have no fun, and then complain to reporters still on twitter.

Ignoring Bernie for the moment, “against the working class” is usually a dogwhistle for “poor whites have racial nervousness and i want to exacerbate that for political gain.”. You wont find real examples because, generally, professional democrats arent against anyone. (even nazis, apparently.)

Bernie’s specific crtique was a slightly tone-deaf critique that the dems were largely silent on the economic nervousness of the working class, and instead spend political capital fighting for racial and gender equality. Since the white male working class is not oppressed by race or gender, or in a position to really oppress anyone, they often feel unrepresented.

To rephrase this: they take the time to block out labels to ensure there is a reason for the brands to pay.

I think you’re underestimating how deep the pay gap goes.

“women’s work” jobs are so consistently paid less that mere career choice is a huge part of the pay gap.

Please understand that “nothing” means the built up surplus runs out and there will be not enough money to pay all benefits.

The smart and easy fix would be to raise the cap on ss taxes while flattening the “you deserve more money because you made more money when you were working” weirdness.

Instead, they’ll likely either do nothing and force the dems to fix it in four years, play with benefits to make the poor suffer, or try and replace it with a phased in 401k style stock market scam.

(that last option, btw, is killing social security.)

Bail is not money you get back. It’s money that a bail bondsman doesn’t have to fork over if you dont show.

Either you are so rich that the opportunity cost of tieing up the whole amount is more than the fee (so you just pay the bond fee) or you don’t have enough and need to ask someone to lend it to yoy (that is, you pay the bond.)

New York tried to largely ban cash bail (becaue its essentially just a way to lock up the poor), but because of Republicans and police unions (i repeat myself) who whined about offenses while out on bail, the state poked a bunch of holes in it instead of making pre-trial detention easier.

Cash bail is ALWAYS indefensible. If someone is so dangerous to civic order they need to be detained pre-trial, then no amount of money should get them out of it.

Did you just intend to endorse organ harvesting and grave robbing?

And, if you want tax reform capital gains aren’t your target, but instead “unrealized gains”. A billionare pledging stock to back a loan should pay tax on their whole net worth’s increass in value first.

Has it also led chidren to believe that if you cut down a tree with an axe it will just hang in the sky instead of falling down?

So, you’re asking if there is a shoplifter whose small-dollar.spree was stopped by target, who was then arrested by the police, who then refused an initial plea offer from the DA, who was then charged by a grand jury, refused a pre-trial plea offer, went to trial, refused the pre-verdict plea offer, and was then found guilty?

Well, what about someone who hit 60k over 120 visits?

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2024/05/07/target-self-checkout-thief-aziza-graves-convicted/73599144007/

(edit: shortened url.)

Is there a particilar part of a lecture about chimpanzee mating habits that you think especially buttress sexism? If not, just referring to a whole video as a reference is just a gish galllp through citation.

Except that it ISNT self-evident. There are plenty of mammals with no apparent bias as to which sex is more prone to violence, more if you exclude the minority of mammals where only one sex has a natural weapon.

You might have a slightly better case if we were just talking primates. But not by a lot.

As a seperate top-level answer: no, would not pursue a romantic relationship with a woman who repeats sexist assertions about men. Because i am both a man and a feminist, and my several decades of happy married life have taught me that compatability of strongly held beliefs is a key to romantic happiness.

I would also not encourage the young men and women i know to either espouse sexist positoons or pursue potential partners who hold such beliefs. And i would probably also ramble for a bit about how all labels are imperfect and you should not necessarily dismiss someone just becsuse of a label.

If you want to date someone who describes themselves as a “radical feminist”, a date might be a good way to discern if they are an “all men are evil” feminist or a “men are awesome and also victims of the patriarchy” feminist.