Exactly. Those in the highest positions of power should damn well have criticism. The argument otherwise seems to imply that accountability and transparency have no place in American politics
Exactly. Those in the highest positions of power should damn well have criticism. The argument otherwise seems to imply that accountability and transparency have no place in American politics
Maybe they believe that the supreme court is more influenced by money than ideology?
Solo had L3-37 who was presented as being a self made individual literally and she was also humanized with her body and movement being less stuffy and robotic and more human. I remember people complaining she was woke.
Maybe it’s woke to advocate for someone having equal rights or wanting to be viewed equal to people when the story presents her as someone who is self-aware, capable of emotions, and desires freedom. She certainly uses a lot of terms that I guess people who are worried about wokeness might find off-putting.
BUT, here’s the thing most of the time when she says that she wants fair treatment or equal rights it’s presented as a joke. Even her losing her body and the ability to freely move and pursue her own goals is treated as something of a happy ending. Remember the whole movie where she said she wants freedom and autonomy and how she’s a self made droid? Well now she’s shackled inside a computer with no ability to escape, but it’s a happy ending because the audience wasn’t meant to take her seriously.
So in that the context of Solo the people who were complaining about wokeness were missing the forest through the trees, when the only messaging that could really be considered “woke” was something that was treated as a joke in the movie. I wouldn’t be surprised if people complaining about wokeness are just people who are upset if minorities or gay people exist and they use the term to hide behind and avoid outright saying it
(I’m aware that there’s more Star Wars than just Solo, but I haven’t seen all the new stuff and was mostly using it as an example)
Echoing malthusian sentiments of “there’s not enough food for everyone” is not helping anyone.
Pointing out the actual problem which is that big farms that exist right now aren’t there to get food to people they are there to make money and they don’t care if it’s sustainable or if anyone gets to eat, is what I did. You’re the one glossing over that.
I don’t think “Food crops cannot sustain the current human population” is the most accurate. I think adding on an “indefinitely” or something similar would be more accurate. The problem is that there’s plenty more land and resources that could go to crops, but it’s more of a problem of how sustainable it is long term.
Topsoil erosion could outpace soil conservation especially with synthetic fertilizer, but if people aren’t getting food now or in our lifetime then it’s not caused by an inability to grow enough crops. It’s caused by companies being driven by the profit motive. It’s more profitable to let food go to waste than get it to people who can’t afford it.
Currently the technology is there to make more than enough crops for everyone, but how sustainable that is in the long term is not something that has been a priority. If more effort is put into making factory farming actually sustainable, which is the way things are starting to go although pretty gradually, then the only thing stopping people from getting food is the incentive to destroy/ let it rot rather than take any potential loss from not artificially inflating prices
Anyone else a fan of Drive Angry? It just seems to fill the action revenge genre roll pretty well to me.
Also I second others comments that Raising Arizona is the best
Not if someone out there thinks that they could profit off a gray goo scenario
The big shift of people on ubi going from wage work to self employment being one of the biggest points of note from this study is interesting. That’s probably a major reason why most US lawmakers would not want ubi.
Something I find interesting is this study didn’t show an increase in hours worked unlike a couple of other smaller studies, that if I recall correctly focused on giving ubi to people who were not currently working.
I’m basically using a 2 stroke chainsaw motor and I get around 20 miles per liter on a 40-1 oil mix
AZ desperately needs one going in-between Phoenix and Flagstaff. Not that a route between Phoenix and Tucson isn’t good it’s just that there is so little options for going up north right now.
I have what is basically classified as a moped because I’m cheap and gas is expensive and I can get to Tucson from Phoenix in about an hour and a half longer than driving. I can’t even go north reasonably because the state says the option for crappier vehicles is some overlong scenic route that makes going from Phoenix to Flagstaff be an extra 100+ miles.
If we’re looking into their heating capacity they should be able to heat approximately 7 and 1/2 gallons of water an hour. A lower end water heater can supply about 85 gallons of water per hour so you’d need about 11 of them to meet a small house capacity.
If we’re looking at their water holding capacity and power consumption. The average house has a 40-60 gallon water heater and a Keurig has a 48oz reservoir. You would need 107 to get to a 40 gallons capacity. When heating they use 1500 watts according to the Internet, so you’d need 160,500 watts (or 1,345.75 amps) of Keurigs to be the equivalent of a low end water heater for a house. The average 40 gallon heater uses between 4500 and 5500 watts.
I’m sorry that happened. People should be able to have a real discussion about issues without attacking common sense.
So in that case you would be the contrarian that this post is talking about. It’s almost as though critical thinking is good. Reactionaries may be the most vocal and abundant people on some posts, but that doesn’t mean they are right or willing to take a good look and discuss the topic at hand