That depends. Do senior CDC or NIH staff stand to collect patent royalties on its administration? The former (and probably informally mandatory). If not, then the latter. Given Stéphane Bancel's and others' recent trading, then I wouldn't bank on this one being a winner.
People like you are better called "forced acquaintance" than "friend". Like, I'll be on good terms with you if I'm forced to be in your social circle, but you'd be out of my life the moment I don't have a compelling reason to interact with you every day.
Here is a better one, how about call a random people and tell them that their kid had terrible accident and they need to come to school imidetly. Its hilarious. /s
Hope there is a special place in hell for people who have cheap laughs at cost of emotional damage of others.
Just for clarity, I'm talking about adult males whose job description is essentially "jump out of planes and kill people." We're not made of quite such fragile stuff as, apparently, you are. It sounds like your life must be very difficult.
The level of well-I-never and pearl-clutching in these comments really speaks volumes about the HN commentariat.
Claming that soldiers or not affected by emotions is laughable and speaks volumes about your understanding of human psyche.
Why don't you go to PTSD meeting for veterans and just tell them to stop being jumpy because they are not suppose to be fragile and its all in their heads.
I agree with your overall point that what the parent comment is suggesting might be not a nice way to treat your friends.
However, if someone feels an equivalent amount of distress from having a convo with a fake person on a dating app as they would from thinking that some terrible accident happened to their kid at school, I believe they might have some larger personal problems to address first.
It's easy to forget how rare it is for some people to get any romantic validation in their lives. You finally meet someone who appreciates you, and then it turns out to be some asshole messing with you and mocking you publicly -- that's deeply horrible.
Getting a request for a provocative picture of eating a corndog was definitely the most funny to me. The Chris Hanson moment was usually when the victim suggested a real date or offered to send a pic of his willy. I'm not THAT committed to humor.
I think the number of people killed in the world each year by personally owned novelty military vehicles is approximately zero. Hundreds of people are killed in the United States every year by unarmed assailants. When will we wake up and pass common-sense karate-chop control?!
How many people would die from personally owned military vehicles if they were not illegal and how many people would die from karate chops if there were (magically enforced) laws banning them?
Please also compare the relative numbers of people with rearmed military vehicles and people with karate-chop capable arms. The important comparison is the conditional probability, not the total numbers.
0 divided by a small number is going to be smaller than a small but nonzero number divided by about seven billion.
If you want to be obtuse you should argue the "tanks in the service of foreign warlords seeking to overthrow their local governments are privately owned" angle.
Ah, so we just eliminate low-cost transportation, agriculture, textiles and consumer goods and consequently starve billions of people. A modest proposal for such an ill-specified problem with unfalsifiable causes. I like it.
I did not propose anything. I pointed out what the actual problem is. If you want to refute that, feel free.
Just because the problem is practically unsolvable does not equal it cannot be said out loud. Carbon above ground is going to increase and at most we can lower the speed of extraction, and until we have (sun-based energy) methods at scale to bring carbon back underground we will have to live with ever increasing CO2 levels.
A change in trend to more getting buried than brought up (full stop first is impractical, plus methods will have to be developed and tested step by step) is not even on the horizon of the most optimistic scenarios.
There are lots of people equating making the statement with "you say we should just do nothing" (I did not tell anyone about what they should/can/cannot do?) or with comments like yours, which is strange but very human.
I've never dealt with a city in my region that didn't have variance procedures for building and land development permits. In my own experience, these committees are nearly a rubber stamp unless an adjacent property owner expects to be inconvenienced. You're observing what's called realized preferences.
Coffee-table planners seem content to frame everything as a political problem, as if developers are an extended civil service or some kind of unthinking machines. There is also an unsurprising lack of investigation into places in the world where zoning free-for-alls actually do exist. Most are not like Martha's Vinyard. Many people don't actually want to live in a favela, and they vote and spend their dollars accordingly.
The east coast built walkable neighborhoods because they were built before cars existed. Several of these states have a net negative domestic migration, which does not suggest that people want to live there.
>It isnt about money, I am juwt ashamed to have an American passport and know my tax dollars are being spent on war and murder in the name of christ and oil profits.
You know Bush isn't president anymore, right? That hasn't been a a popular (and I would say erroneous, even when it was popular) talking point for more than a decade.
I do find it interesting that expatriation trends seem to pivot in years with presidential elections, according to that chart.
> You know Bush isn't president anymore, right? That hasn't been a a popular (and I would say erroneous, even when it was popular) talking point for more than a decade.
The US performed military operations in eight different countries just during the Obama administration, some of the conflicts where not inherited, like the war in Syria and Yemen.
Those wars were payed by the US citizens regardless of whether they agreed with the war or not.
Obama invaded Syria "in the name of Christ and oil profits"? That justification was a myth, even when the Trotskyites-cum-Conservatives asserted it as truth 15 years ago.
Creating a belt of failed states in Central Asia has been a long-standing policy, if Wesley Clark is to be believed. I can only speculate what the real goals are, but "because Jesus" or "because Bush is dumb" was always fodder for the low-info crowd who watched the Daily Show.
> Obama invaded Syria "in the name of Christ and oil profits"? That justification was a myth, even when the Trotskyites-cum-Conservatives asserted it as truth 15 years ago.
Yes Bush isn't president, but the failures and hatreds of the entire Bush family are still incredibly relevant today. If you don't believe that, look at the 10s of thousands of Afghans currently walking through Iran and Turkey to find refuge in Europe).
When you're the leader of the most powerful nation in the world, your decisions outlast your position.
I think the refugees are motivated much more by the financial incentives those governments provide. They usually pass through multiple safe countries to get to places like Germany. A modernized Plantation of Ulster has been the policy of every Western government since the 60s.
War and, I guess, the weather, are convenient narratives for these highly unpopular policies.
I just realized, I never mentioned Bush, you did. See, I didn't even have to mention Bush, just his legacy, and you instantly knew what I was referencing.
The allure of becoming a billionaire with almost no productive effort spent is the heart and soul of the pop-tech. Crypto that you have becomes more valuable only if more people decide they want it after you have your position. If you're "hodling" then you have an incentive to be a promoter.
Do you think the folks with real decision making power (I'm thinking people invited to Davos, rather than people in mostly ceremonial political roles) in the United States actually want a future without global Chinese hegemony? As far as I can tell, our elites are overtly hostile to the American populace and actively undermine us.
I am reminded of 1940s US-Soviet relations where FDR & friends saw Stalin as the lovable rascal leading us all toward a lovely future of enlightened, global despotism under the new faith of dialectical materialism (nowadays otherwise named). Given the chummy trade relations we maintained with our 'enemies' throughout the 'Cold War', I suspect Soviet capitulation was kind of, like, an accident. I don't think our money-masters or politburo want Americans as we know them to survive.
