lukas099

Have you never grown a plant? They grow towards the light. If there’s not enough light, they grow tall and leggy. This isn’t revolutionary.

But the issue also causes male infertility, so that can’t be why it’s so prevalent. This is discussed in the article.

It’s not ignorant to point out the main reason that trees in cultivation are shorter, which is that there is no need for them to grow tall. They’re also a lot greater in trunk diameter, fwiw.

A lot of the tech research and investment is done by governments, though.

What do you like better about it?

> difference in tree height observed in nature vs. "in cultivation"... often 50% height!

Trees in nature are usually in forests, where they grow tall in competition for light. Terra in cultivation tend to be grown surrounded by grass, growing wider and shorter to collect sunshine.

Why?

> most startups and tech darlings survive only by continuous infusion of unlimited investor money.

Investors making long bets is a good thing, I’d argue.

“Normie” is indeed used on 4chan but it didn’t originate there. Yes I agree that “based” was popularized by 4chan. Not so sure that “normie” was.

Yes but if you go on /pol/ for an hour you are guaranteed to see nazi shit. I don't think they were saying that one nazi on the board means it's a nazi board, I think that part scales up when mapping the analogy to real life.

I could be wrong but I don't think 'normie' came from 'normalfag'. I'm somewhat skeptical that 'goyslop' was the first use of 'slop' in this way too. And of course 'based' comes from rapper Lil B.

It's a kink because it's a taboo for them

Amending the Constitution to create a judicial law enforcement agency would not, in itself, be a Constitutional crisis. Or if you meant that such an agency could then cause one, yeah that could happen in theory, but so could the Executive causing a crisis because the courts don't have an enforcement arm. And to act like the President causing the crisis isn't the more likely scenario in 2025 would be stupifyingly ignorant.

Democracy doesn't mean that a plurality of voters in a single presidential election gets to overturn the Constitution and established law.

So you support impinging on free speech as long as the majority of voters is against something? That's exactly the kind of thing the Constitution is meant to prevent.

Or do you agree that it is not a violation of free speech to fund police when there are citizens who disagree with it? You can't have it both ways.

Or we could fix it now, before the Constitutional crisis, which is what we were talking about from the start.

> The legislative branch can pass a law requiring enforcement

At this point the Executive is already ignoring the law.

Like a doomsday cult, with each failed prediction they will just keep pushing back the ostensible payoff. So far, we've seen "I will end inflation on day one" -> "this is still Biden's inflation" -> "there will be a little bit of pain" -> "the system has been broken for decades and it will take years to fix".

> That leaves the executive, and personally I don't see a problem with enforcement living there.

What if the executive just decides not to enforce the decisions of the legislative and judicial branches?

> In order to leverage comparative advantage, an economy would need to know how good they would be at producing every possible good.

Maybe I'm not getting what you're saying, but I don't think so. The point of comparative advantage is that even if country A is better at making guns and butter than B, A is better off only making guns or butter and trading to B for the other.

And potential access to unlimited free calories.

Cheetahs are sports cars.

Europe definitely has nicer cities. IMO the main reason to visit the U.S. is its National Parks. NYC is cool too for the diversity of cultures.

Never heard of anyone getting paid to do anything like digging ditches and refilling them; is this a real problem?

Evidence that the "vast majority" of low skilled people in cities find "no employment or employment in illegal activities"?

I seem to recall the shortage being "dire", but short-lasting. The market adapted and supplied the needed materiel. Is there any evidence or theory showing that a more protectionist system would fare any better?

Kind of like switching to supporting Russia so your allies think you're no longer a reliable partner and start beefing up their own militaries.

I would kind of like to see some more point-and-click adventure games. There's nothing really fun about walking in games and point-and-click means that every moment of the game can be a perfect painting exactly as the artist visualized.

I'd say dihydrogen monoxide is pretty obviously a keystone chemical.

With beaver, flooding is more common but the severity of the worst floods is lessened.