Seems incredibly irresponsible of them to include it in a blue chip fund.

So I’ve read.

They still blew up their launch pad and showered a protected wildlife area with particulate, metal, and concrete debris.

They then built and operated their water deluge system without obtaining permits.

Typo or no, they’re still taking a fast and loose, “better to ask forgiveness than permission” approach that is a detriment to a protected natural environment. They intend to test the limits of the Texas government’s ability to show disdain for the environment in favor of private enterprise.

It’s not just blind hate for Elon, they’re genuinely terrible stewards of the environment in south Texas. They constantly lie about their intentions and impact to avoid having to take responsibility for anything. Say what you will about how independently they operate from his input, this is definitely a company culture that he cultivates and promotes.

Eastern District of Texas is extremely favorable to patent trolls. It’s not a coincidence that they filed the suit there.

I’m really surprised as well. But if you think about where American culture was in the ‘50s and early ‘60s, there was a huge emphasis placed on being “normal.” You can be sure that most boomers were told by their parents or peers at some point to “just be normal” or criticized someone by saying they’re not normal, and there’s still plenty of conservative families raising their kids like that today.

I can only imagine that’s the nerve being touched by the “weird” criticism.

We already know what he looks like in a cowboy hat, and that ain’t it.

Shame to see Colin Allred voted yea. He’s the only hope we have to unseat Ted Cruz this year.

Then, 15 years later, when I rejoined the world of modern PC gaming, those games were all still available for download from my Steam account just because I bought the physical Orange Box back in 2007.

That’s certainly not a flaw in the philosophy. As it pertains to the voter, you’re not expected to know the future, but you do have a civic duty to be informed when voting. If you have made a good faith effort to understand the context of the choice and the most likely outcomes of the options available, you can’t be faulted for not foreseeing the exact outcomes that unfold. If nothing else, because you can’t possibly know exactly what the outcomes of the alternatives would have been. Ignoring the most likely outcomes in favor of the most desired outcomes is what seems unethical. “Letting perfect be the enemy of good” and all that.

I genuinely “Kant” see how someone can justify a moral framework where only the action has intrinsic morality and the consequences are completely irrelevant. Sure, the morality of an action should be considered, but ultimately, real-world choices have to be made from a holistic consideration of the entire situation.

Similarly, I also reject the idea of perfectly objective morality. There are extreme shades of grey, but never black and white. No action can be said to be universally good regardless of both intent and context, except in religious moral frameworks.

I’d hardly call that comic a middle finger. Just a succinct way of expressing my disagreement. But since you asked, here’s the empathetic version:

Please appreciate that you’re not the only disappointed idealist. Everyone wants things to be better and I genuinely understand the desire to only vote for what you can defend to yourself morally. However, that’s not the framework we have to work within. The realities of American politics require pragmatism that is incompatible with stubborn idealism. My argument is that the deontological approach is unethical because it prioritizes how the voter feels about their vote over reducing total harm to the greatest number of people. Votes aren’t love letters and they aren’t prayers. To the extent that any of us as individuals have any influence on the mad, chaotic world that we all have to live in, consequences are more important than intentions.

Which will occur at whatever undisclosed time that Windows Updates deems prudent.

Yeah, this is exactly what’s wrong with constantly demonizing boomers and attributing every shitty thing they’ve ever done to leaded gas and paint chips. Populations tend more conservative as they get older and they have for centuries. Even if a minority of individuals actually change their minds, people who were politically apathetic when they were younger tend to be more conservative when they do start voting when they’re older, skewing the whole generation more conservative. There’s already plenty of conservative millennials out there, and even more of them among the ranks of the non-voters.

Remember, boomers are the generation of hippies. Actual, literal hippies who, despite whatever imperfect motives you may ascribe to their movement, achieved greater social revolution in their time than any attitude shifts that have occurred during millennials’ peak social years. And that was only with ~30% of boomers participating in the movement. The rest of them went on to vote for Reagan and kick off helicopter parenting and satanic panic and music censorship and the whole bit.

Anyone who thinks millennials will be somehow immune to this pattern is in for a rough next few decades.

Sorry, but you’re not going to get ranked choice voting just by pretending you already have it. FPTP and the electoral college are realities of US politics and the “lesser of two evils” approach is the only realistic way to play the game.

The executive branch is the wrong place to try to achieve ranked choice voting anyway. Vote for legislative candidates who support ranked choice. If nobody is talking about it, call your representatives. Start petitions. Join grassroots organizations. Anything, but don’t fool yourself into thinking the path to fixing our issues involves voting for Jill Stein over Biden next year.

13 x 28 = 364

Make New Years Day it’s own thing, not counted in a month (or just make the new 13th month 29 days long), and continue tacking on leap days to the end of February using the currently established rules.

The length of the year doesn’t change and no seasonal regression. It has so many fewer exceptions than our current system that you’d wonder how we ever ended up with a 12 month calendar.

economic systems dependent on reliable growth will collapse

Huh, maybe that’s the actual problem.

I would also emphasize that nuclear reactor =/= nuclear bomb. Power reactors cannot under any circumstances cause a nuclear explosion.