ethanbond

This is excessively cynical. Different diets work for different people. Diet is such a complex mixture of culture, social environment, work environment, personal values, the personal values of people around you, your surrounding physical infrastructure, your own psychology and finally your biology.

The answer to “what diet” is “keep trying them until you find one that works, then stick with it.” There is an infinite number of totally functional combinations.

Every Chipotle in America is part of the Bauhaus lineage. Wildly common, if not "popular."

Does heat increase, decrease, or not affect people’s need for water?

> Everywhere there are people, there is water

LOL. Yeah bud, that’s because people have to leave when they run out of water, otherwise they die. That is the whole problem.

Good point. Once you look past ideology, water is everywhere to be found.

“You just dig up water! Duh!” - Person from The Land of 10,000 Lakes

Brilliant. Couldn’t make it up.

Nice living in the wealthiest country in human history, ain’t it.

Do you think this is the case for the billions of people closer to the equator or in poorer countries?

Well no because people in already warm humid areas will be the first to experience this sort of heat, plus they tend not to have widespread air conditioning, plus they tend not to have the wealth necessary to fix the problem of no widespread air conditioning.

The last to die will be the people who are most harmful to the environment on a per-capita basis. Before then, you’ll have socioeconomic disruption in warm countries, creating masses of people fleeing to cooler climates, creating political openings for xenophobes and unsavory characters throughout the western world who will take it as a key goal to preserve our right to pollute, now return to step 1, cycle repeats and amplifies.

No, the temperature being described here is extremely lethal within hours even to heat-adapted people.

Comments like this just propagate a public opinion of indifference which really does make it harder for the government to hold people responsible. There obviously have been numerous cases of the govt stepping in effectively on such malfeasance and the smart thing to do is to demand that this becomes one of those cases. Not “I’m so smart I see through the bullshit so I expect (and therefore am encouraging) nothing to happen.”

It’s extremely hard for people to look past the current environment of, in general, knowing that whatever drug they can get their hands on (commercially) is going to at least be safe and probably quite effective.

What? It didn’t get approved. It failed Phase III as designed.

I agree, which is why I included the fact that “good guy with gun” is also a gigantic fucking problem on an aircraft.

Drunk guy with gun is a huge problem.

Sleep-deprived guy with gun is a huge problem.

What

Well they probably don't like Kamikaze pilots either but frankly those aren't much of a concern these days.

Last year TSA intercepted almost seven thousand firearms at security checkpoints, 93% of which were loaded. So take all those crazy people, then add firearms into their vicinity, or a firearm into the hands of a well-meaning but panicking co-passenger now trying to "secure" a crowd of 300 people 30,000 feet in the air.

Or they don't want jihadists flying planes into their buildings either ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

That sounds like TSA Precheck, which doing a basic background check to get seems very reasonable.

I think the US chose not to level Baghdad and if it had, it would’ve been at least as catastrophic as what’s going on in Gaza. So no it’s not merely a matter of a different situation, it’s a matter of different decisions.

And one of those “constraints” is that Congress is empowered to create federal agencies to execute its laws. The rules under those agencies are backed by enabling legislation, and if you disagree with the connection between a rule and its enabling legislation, you can go to court and make that argument.

I think what you’re really getting at is you’d prefer a far more dysfunctional government, since the actual moral/legal foundation would be no different. All of the federal agencies and their rules are derivative of Congressional acts, and again, if you disagree you can just go to court. Exactly as it would be if, for some reason, we decided that congress had to pass every single individual rule and sub rule and subsubrule and subsubsubrule exception 2 infraction 6 exemption 16.a and if, to combat any assessment of infraction, you had to go directly into the actual judicial system.

All the legal basis is identical, the only thing that’s different is how wildly ineffective it’d be. If that’s your goal, just say it so we can move on.

Congress obviously passed laws that authorize the executive to create and enforce rules. Everything you’re describing as some huge travesty sounds like a sensible and meaningful optimization of a system that already tends to be extremely overburdened.

I don’t want every single corporate rule breaking attempt to immediately compete with murders for courtroom time.

Obviously everyone should have the right to use the justice system if they need to, and they do have that right.

Can companies not escalate these types of battles into the traditional justice system?

I didn’t say you were. I am pointing out a more directly analogous war to demonstrate that similar militaries have waged similar wars against similar adversaries for far, far greater spans of time yielding far fewer journalist deaths.

I am also pointing out that “this war is extra hard to prosecute” is not actually justification for certain actions. The difficulty of fighting the war falls on the people fighting the war, including the difficulty of protecting civilians during that war. What else would any standards or laws mean if that weren’t the case? The whole premise of these standards is to set a ceiling on what sort of awful conditions can be allowed during warfare.

1. Onus doesn’t mean legal requirement. Civilized nations can be, should be, and generally are held to standards far exceeding legal statutes.

2. They DO have an actual legal obligation to protect journalists as well, try searching for “civilian.” If they are targeting journalists (read: civilians) that would obviously be illegal.

The onus of protecting journalists (and medical workers) falls on the military regardless of how difficult the war they’re trying to prosecute is.

How many journalists did the US kill in 20 years of OEF/OIF?

"In other countries"... right... opening it up to a market of 340 million people with rampant metabolic problems is what's special about it.

Which is why one might create a mechanism, say a non-profit, that has an established, codified mission to combat such obviously foreseeable efforts.

There’s zero evidence for that.

Umm I made assertions in which I don't believe, of the shape "Near term bad thing is okay because in the long run it might have good second order consequences."

Not sure what's "non-factual" about it?

Just laying out my understanding of where we are right now. Tell me where it's wrong:

Companies: We're raising billions of dollars to make it cheaper, faster, and easier to produce extremely believable fake media. Our success in this endeavor is verifiable by opening one of thousands of new image generator tools and trying it yourself for 30 seconds.

News reports: People are using tools that make it cheaper, faster, and easier to produce extremely believable nonconsensual sexual imagery of children (e.g. https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/misinformation/beverly-vista-hi...)

You: This is just like Photoshop. Not sure what the relevance is.

Is that right?

Sure if you ignore that generating and modifying images is one of the leading usecases. Anyhow I think the combination "your mom" joke and thinking valuation == spend has revealed this to be a fruitless conversation.

Try the app called Opal. Similar thing but you can always skip the block. The trick is that each time you skip the block, there’s a longer and longer cooldown period to skip it again.