You have to pick one as a favorite. No splitsies.

I have to wonder if the actual woman in the image is aware her face is being plastered all over lemmy by some weird guy.

It’s technically true in absolutes. Absolute freedom, without giving up humanity, gives no guarantee of safety provided by anything outside of yourself. Absolute safety exists only in a providential void, where needs are seen to magically, as by a benevolent god. If you seek safety in the absolute freedom, you lose the freedom in one way or another. Walls to keep out enemies keep the builders in. Tools to provide for survival require production and maintenance, taking away your freedom to choose to do things that you enjoy. If you seek freedom in the absolute safety, you have to risk giving external forces access. Those forces always carry risk of harm, whether by malicious action or indifference. However, while it’s necessary to sacrifice one for the other in the absolute, it’s not sufficient. Nothing about the relationship says being less of one necessarily makes you more of the other. The easy example is prison. In most prisons your freedom is severely curtailed, but you certainly aren’t safe. You might even be imprisoned for the purpose of being harmed.

If it’s literal, I have a very, very, very long life of space travel ahead of me.

If it’s in the Carl Sagan metaphorical ‘we are star stuff’ sense, then it could literally be anything.

It comes a-smiling

One of the big issues is that tariffs are protectionist in the same way as a space suit. Yeah, if the outside is hostile, it can protect you, but you better have things inside the suit already working to provide you with everything you need or you’ll end up far, far worse off.

Well…

First off, why do you want to stick of to Canada. They, by and large, have been good neighbors to the US. The only people who get angry at Canada are usually Canadians.

That aside, limiting imports limits supply, likely increasing prices for whatever product has been limited. It’s not that different from the tariffs, as far as the consumer is concerned. The big difference is that it sets up a first mover benefit for the exporters/importers (if you get your whole supply across before the cutoff, you get to sell all of it, whereas later sellers might only be able to get part of their supply across. Faster companies benefit from this, to unknown effect.) as opposed to a capital/demand limit from the tariffs. (higher tariffs require higher prices, which often prices out some amount of people who would buy the item. Importers can try to narrow their unit margin or spend capital to sell more slowly. Companies with more capital can find it easier to afford either/both.)

Only if successfully completing experiments is itself good or evil. The question stipulates they are our moral inverse, not opposite in every way.

Get someone to do a very long set of interviews, thought experiments, and tests to see what makes us different in order to isolate, regardless of whether we can tell which of us holds the evil position, what areas of belief can have a position than can be objectively called evil. It’d be hilarious if, after months of testing, it turns out the only difference we have is our opinions on marmite or pineapple on pizza.

So many good ones, I don’t know how to choose.

• Interstellar 55555 (slightly cheating)
• Perfect Blue
• The Green Knight
• The Girl With All the Gifts
• Dune (the original)
• Densha Otoko
• Spirited Away
• Dark Knight
• Interstellar
• The Last of Us (game and show)
• Innocent Venus

Don’t forget the vocal minority problem. The subset of people who comment on things is much smaller than the set of people who consume them. And while the threshold of effort for making comment is low, it isn’t zero, so people who hold more extreme views are going to be more prevalent in the selection because the people with moderate views aren’t going to have the motivation to spend 20 minutes explaining the nuanced position they have, while the ‘love’ and ‘hate’ camps will gladly spend 10 seconds on posting their simplistic view.

Add on the way modern systems work, focusing on likes, upvotes, etc. and you get short form responses getting greater engagement purely because they don’t take as long to read. It’s always easier to get traction with a short, maybe amusing, rehash of a common opinion than with a long dissertation on niche, complex views.

That cycles back in at the top to create a visibility bias so the people making the next round of commentary/content see the wave of love/hate and try to ride it. The result is a feedback loop with a terrible signal to noise ratio.

In the current system, education isn’t viewed as a system of societal improvement but as a product to improve the standing of the individual. Because the individual is seen as the only one who benefits from their education, the individual pays for it.

Popped open the article to find out, and the answer is neither. The ‘milk’ is crystals collected by cutting open a particular kind of roach and extracting them from its brood sack.

There’s a phrase I didn’t know I’d be using today.

What about a 360deg camera, where the target person is yourself, and anyone else captured is merely incidental/background?

And it’s only March.

Having kids is always an act of selfishness. You don’t do it because you are trying to ‘gift’ life to the child. You do it because you think it will make you happy. Look at your reasons.

“me and my partner have wanted children since we were children” There’s your reason. You have the biological imperative. You want your genetics to continue.

" if a life is not worth living it must be an absolutely horrific and torterous experience." That’s life. ‘Worth’ is purely subjective. Objectively, life is worthless. If you have the right genetics and circumstances, you can ignore this fact, but it’s always there.

“If all of us liberal and educated folks stop having kids what will the world look like?” This is just the ideological version of the biological imperative, the idea of ‘my ideas must be passed down’ instead of ‘my genes.’ But it is based on faulty assumptions. It assumes your kids wouldn’t become fascists just because you aren’t. It assumes the children of members of a political party will automatically join the same one when they grow up. Why would you assume this? Do you have the same views as your parents? Grandparents?

If you want to have your kids, go ahead, but don’t delude yourself that it’s your gift to the leftist cause or to the child. It’s a way to scratch your biological itch to be a parent, just as much as masturbation and sex.

Insert joke along the lines of ‘I don’t.’

More seriously, I’ve thought about this a bit. The simple answer is already seen in other responses: rural enough to escape crowds, close enough to urbanity to get good internet. The more perspicacious answer is overly complex: someplace where the weather is mild enough not to kill you if you lose your keys, and likely to stay that way despite climate change, mountainous enough to have nice views and avoid flooding, flat enough to build, sparse enough for land to be affordable, populous enough to be able to get the things I want without making a long trek, wooded enough to get the benefit of trees, bare enough to allow access, not too many racists or zealots, not too rich or poor of neighbors, neighbors not close enough to disturb me, but not so far that I couldn’t run over for something if needed, somewhere politically stable, somewhere I can work without a million-mile commute, where the soil doesn’t suck, where there’s a pleasant amount of rain and sun…

It’s not a small question.

Cigarette advertising was banned in the US. It famously increased profit because they didn’t have to burn it all on advertising.

Advertising is like nuclear weapons. It’s bad that it exists, harms people around it, and is only needed because the opposition has it. If it disappeared, everyone would benefit, but no one wants to be the first.

I actively avoid shorts so most of what I watch is long form.

• Technology Connections - A guy needing out about household tech
• Unlearning Economics - a trained economist turned public edutainer who kept learning after Econ 101, unlike others who shall remain nameless
• Behind the Bastards - Chummy laughter about the worst people ever
• RPG with DBJ - RPG talk with a focus on creativity and exploring the opportunities afforded by the space of ‘limited only by your imagination’
• We’re in Hell - A guy looking at pieces of media and the ideology infused into them by culture
• Gresham College - lectures on widely ranging topics, presented by professors but targetting the layperson
• The Morbid Zoo - A cool gal doing analysis of movies, usually horror, but sometimes others, with an eye toward ideology and culture (Hellraiser, Smile, Twilight, PotC, etc.)
• Folding Ideas - More film analysis, but with a tack toward various criticisms
• Doctor Who - the old series are all on the tubes now. Not educational, but fun.

So, if you laid on a large enough block of it, you’d have the perfect shape to make a mold for a customized foam mattress?