DeWilde

Statistics also show that increased ice cream sale rate correlates with increased drownings occurrences.

So that means ice cream causes drownings and that we should ban it? Or it happens that ice cream eating and swimming both happen during the summer.

Metabolic rate isn't the same for everyone. I also can eat in large amounts and not get fat.

Also don't think that because you are not getting fat that your body is in a healthy state. You can be really skinny yet get insulin resistance, as I did.

Think of it this way, more people in your country means more economic activity, and a larger tax base.

If you work a laptop job currently then assume that it can be done by anyone anywhere in the world. Wouldn't you want that person to buy US products, US services, and pay US taxes?

> And the car might end up lighter than stock.

This sounds like a good idea but changing the cars base weight can affect its security rating (more likely to flip over).

Additional weights would have to be added in the places that it correspond to parts being removed.

Besides the 10 minute morning breathing meditation exercise I constantly strive to be in the moment by manually breathing during the day. This especially helpful in stressful situations.

EDIT

Also consider the progressive muscle relaxation meditation technique. It greatly helps with anxiety and I still benefit from it today even though I did only for a few months about 4 years ago. I can recognize when I am tensing up due to anxiety and immediately relax myself.

KeePassXC and combine it with cloud storage and you have a semi-self-hosted or host it on a storage attached to a network you can VPN in to and you have fully self-hosted password manager accessible from anywhere.

Police raids are usually enough to dissuade most people. That might be the reason why they were ignored.

I don't deny that, each country has done or has the capacity to commit atrocities. Some just do it less.

The third option isn't a fallacy if you are looking it from the perspective of that individual researcher who lives in a country that seeks to develop those weapons because its rivals are also developing them. They are thinking for their own safety and the safety for the people around them who live in that country. Would you do nothing if you know your efforts could potentially shield the people you love from harm? Or would you help build the system knowing that they might get misused, in the hopes that it at least protects you and the people dear to you?

EDIT: typos.

Swarm of drones could probably be countered by an opposing swarm of drones that search and destroy enemy bots. But yes, this does raise the stakes, and those without tools to combat these weapons are absolutely screwed.

But you mentioned the anti-tank weapons. These didn't exist and before and a column of tanks would have an easy time with even a large and organized force of infantry soldiers. This is what happened in Poland during WW2.

So I'm hopeful that we will have a counter for these new systems like we now have counters to tanks.

I fully understand the terrifying outcomes but would have no problem building these systems to act as deterrent, or counter-force, to the people who would use these "innovations" for evil purposes.

So there is a third option, alongside your original two.

The trouble is, there are undemocratic societies where this is being built as well. This drone swarm is actually from China. The reasons why we build these systems is to prevent the undemocratic societies gaining power over us. The threat of our own societies becoming undemocratic doesn't feel as pressing as the threat of undemocratic societies that exist today.

The atomic bomb is a good example, a lot of the scientist working on it wouldn't have if there weren't fears that Nazi Germany was going to build it first.

This also reminds of the prisoners dilemma. If both parties choose not to build these systems we would be all fine, if one builds it and the others doesn't the other is screwed. If both build it they are both screwed but not as much.

Makes sense, applying 100 IQ for 10 minutes give a higher intelligence force than applying 150 IQ for 1 minute.

Totally scientific.

Yes, but the 5-6 hours you spend within a school alongside 3-4 hours you can spend on sports and hobbies probably out-competes just sports and hobbies.

My company uses it still, there were some new projects recently started using it. It does the job of creating CRUD apps pretty well.

For more performance intensive tasks .NET Core is used.

Of course, better opportunities may come without working hard. But in my case the opportunity was only realistic as I spent years preparing for it. If I'd spent those years doing and selling drugs the opportunity would've came but it would have not been realistic for me to seize it.

I'm talking from experience, my drive to succeed helped me to take an opportunity when it came. Otherwise I'd probably be selling weed on the corner.

Or you think its better to evade temporary failure by embracing permanent failure?

> So those without mates are possibly not stable?

Of course not. You can be stable and not be interested for a mate. Or as you pointed out, there can be huge friction between a person and their mate because of a job or circumstances.

But aren't those cases a minority, a exception to the rule? Even people in the military or working in extreme areas don't do that most of their lives. And this isn't something new really, frontiersmen and sailors faced same issues in the 20th and 19th centuries (and since forever really).

I was thinking about a people who are stable and also have a chance and will to find a mate.

Is that really an issue? If you are a stable personality finding a mate isn't that much of an issue. Especially today with high mobility and dating apps if you put your back to it you can find a partner.

Still better to instill expectations even if opportunity currently does not exist. If it arises one day that person will do better.

That sucks, in Bosnia in most gyms you pay up-front for the month you are intending to use the gym.

Can't you just opt to pay in cash (or Credit Card) for every month you want to have a gym subscription?

Yes, I was aiming for hunker down. Thanks.

I think the south of Argentine is probably a better spot to duke it out during a full-scale nuclear war.

> I have seen recently several discussions in the HN/Substack blog milleau about nuclear war “not being that bad.”

I think that was a fear of death cope. Downplaying such events reduces the temporary anxiety of thinking about living in a world where nukes have been unleashed.

It's hard to overstate how annihilating these weapons are to the areas that are struck by them, and how decimating they are even to the population areas not directly struck but heavily dependent on the major population centers.

But how accurate is that diagnosis, are there false positives and how much?

I know, anecdotally, that some homosexual men are gender dysphoric during prepubescent age but grew out of it during puberty, and feel it would have been a mistake to transition at that age.

But this isn't the point of the essay. The point is that asking questions like these would get you branded a heretic by the far left. And acknowledging gender dysphoria would get you branded a heretic by the far right.

This seems shockingly dumb. I wasn't aware of such things going on in the US, my cultural knowledge on the subject of growing up in the US was of kids roaming around on their bikes all day.

These would be categorized as crimes against humanity.

Can you explain as to why you can't send children to play in a park? I don't understand, like far away or even near their home?

Why would the US declare companies that benefit them as security threats?

Metformin is also pretty bad when comes to impact to testosterone levels, at least in most men. The exact mechanism that this happens is that it saps the cholesterol from your blood. This cholesterol would otherwise be used for T production by the testes.