The dialogue sort of sounds like "my name is Jennifer Lopez And I like tacos and burritos"
Almost like it was an experimental treatment rushed through and there's no way of doing long term testing without a long term.
Which is only controversial if one doesn't know how time works
Which is only controversial if one doesn't know how time works
Along the same lines of this, and the homesteading act of 1909 removed the requirement to have access to surface water for a farm. This dramatically increased the number of people who are able to take advantage of homesteading.
Around the same time, there happened to be temporary change in climate, so the prairies were much wetter than they previously were.
People had decided that that changing climate was permanent. The saying was "the rains follow the plow". They ignored all of the old rules saying that you should make sure that you have access to surface groundwater, and just kept on building more farms. Eventually, the climate returned to the way it was previously, and the result was one of the largest ecological disasters in the history of the world, the dust bowl. All of the water thirsty crops destroyed the topsoil, and all of the native prairie grasses and plants had been driven out. Besides destroying the environment, the economic impact of massive loans being taken out in part thanks to the new Federal reserve system that made Banks think that they couldn't have Bank runs so they didn't need to worry about risk meant an economic catastrophe on top of a ecological one.
Seems to me that there's a lot of parallels in that story with the post-war economy. People gave up on previously held ideas that were important, and while their temporary boost was ok they made sense, eventually the previous status quo returned and there were dire consequences because the old rules were there for a reason.
Around the same time, there happened to be temporary change in climate, so the prairies were much wetter than they previously were.
People had decided that that changing climate was permanent. The saying was "the rains follow the plow". They ignored all of the old rules saying that you should make sure that you have access to surface groundwater, and just kept on building more farms. Eventually, the climate returned to the way it was previously, and the result was one of the largest ecological disasters in the history of the world, the dust bowl. All of the water thirsty crops destroyed the topsoil, and all of the native prairie grasses and plants had been driven out. Besides destroying the environment, the economic impact of massive loans being taken out in part thanks to the new Federal reserve system that made Banks think that they couldn't have Bank runs so they didn't need to worry about risk meant an economic catastrophe on top of a ecological one.
Seems to me that there's a lot of parallels in that story with the post-war economy. People gave up on previously held ideas that were important, and while their temporary boost was ok they made sense, eventually the previous status quo returned and there were dire consequences because the old rules were there for a reason.
I've been reading a kids bible with my son, going through all the old testament stories (obviously making me a biblical expert now jk).
A key theme in the stories we're reading is that there is a right way to live and a wrong way to live, and if you live the right way you'll ultimately triumph and your children will thrive, and if you live the wrong way then you'll ultimately fail and your children will die. There is truth to this. The world is harsh, and if you don't find the right rules to live by and follow those rules you'll fail, and we're seeing that right now with entire bloodlines dying out and a population collapse on the way.
Because of that, once a way of living that is effective is found, trying to get other people that you care about to follow it isn't about control, it's about survival. If you care about people, then you want them to do the right things so that they can thrive. Especially if by doing the wrong things so they can die out.
The post-war period was one of the largest economic expansions in the history of the world. Workers rights got way better, the material comforts of the working class skyrocketed, and there was plenty for everyone. In such an environment, it looks as if you don't need to follow any given rules because you'll figure out a way regardless.
The problem is that it's such a golden age can't last forever, and it didn't. Even within the Boomer's lifetime they started to see a contraction. When you're not living in a golden age, suddenly it matters a lot more that you find rules that work and follow them.
Everyone is still going off of the old Boomer mindset, but I don't think that that can last much longer. The reality that you need to find the right things to do and do them or else you will suffer is already here, and eventually the people who think that they can do whatever they want without consequences are just going to die out. And therefore, if you actually love your neighbor you would want to pressure them to do the right thing because it will help them survive and thrive. You wouldn't want to pressure them to do the right thing because you want to control them, but because you care about them and you want to see them thrive.
A key theme in the stories we're reading is that there is a right way to live and a wrong way to live, and if you live the right way you'll ultimately triumph and your children will thrive, and if you live the wrong way then you'll ultimately fail and your children will die. There is truth to this. The world is harsh, and if you don't find the right rules to live by and follow those rules you'll fail, and we're seeing that right now with entire bloodlines dying out and a population collapse on the way.
Because of that, once a way of living that is effective is found, trying to get other people that you care about to follow it isn't about control, it's about survival. If you care about people, then you want them to do the right things so that they can thrive. Especially if by doing the wrong things so they can die out.
The post-war period was one of the largest economic expansions in the history of the world. Workers rights got way better, the material comforts of the working class skyrocketed, and there was plenty for everyone. In such an environment, it looks as if you don't need to follow any given rules because you'll figure out a way regardless.
The problem is that it's such a golden age can't last forever, and it didn't. Even within the Boomer's lifetime they started to see a contraction. When you're not living in a golden age, suddenly it matters a lot more that you find rules that work and follow them.
Everyone is still going off of the old Boomer mindset, but I don't think that that can last much longer. The reality that you need to find the right things to do and do them or else you will suffer is already here, and eventually the people who think that they can do whatever they want without consequences are just going to die out. And therefore, if you actually love your neighbor you would want to pressure them to do the right thing because it will help them survive and thrive. You wouldn't want to pressure them to do the right thing because you want to control them, but because you care about them and you want to see them thrive.
Because it isn't against the rules. Not just according to him, but according to the entire supreme court -- all 9 justices.
https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/Letter%20to%20Chairman%20Durbin%2004.25.2023.pdf
Advocating that everyone throw away the rules the moment someone you don't like is doing something you don't like is becoming increasingly common, and it's an existential threat to any ideology advocating for it.
Let's say that you get this one. Let's say that they bend the rules to punish someone for something that wasn't against the rules this time. How long until people you do agree with are getting punished for things that aren't against the rules that you don't think are worth punishing someone over?
Eventually, giving up on fairness and rule of law will bite you. Hard.
https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/Letter%20to%20Chairman%20Durbin%2004.25.2023.pdf
Advocating that everyone throw away the rules the moment someone you don't like is doing something you don't like is becoming increasingly common, and it's an existential threat to any ideology advocating for it.
Let's say that you get this one. Let's say that they bend the rules to punish someone for something that wasn't against the rules this time. How long until people you do agree with are getting punished for things that aren't against the rules that you don't think are worth punishing someone over?
Eventually, giving up on fairness and rule of law will bite you. Hard.
Did voice assistance really take that much money? I didn't find mine changed all that much over the years I've owned mine, they're basically glorified music player UIs at this point
England had a huge problem with adulterated food in the 19th century. These adulterants included things like alum, chalk, and even sawdust. As a result of this, there were laws passed that specifically defined exactly what bread was and what could go into it.
https://www.victorianweb.org/science/health/health1.html
https://www.victorianweb.org/science/health/health1.html
In the 1970s a bunch of hippies moved to nature communes. It turns out they hated nature almost as much as they hated communism.
I think it's awfully neat that certain things like a fairly obscure science experiment from the 1950s have extended so far through cultural osmosis.
Ontario is nuclear previously backed up by gas with a mix of some hydro, but the big problem with hydroelectric isn't that it can't be done up here, it's that the greenies decided hydroelectric didn't let you destroy capitalism so they oppose it.
If bloody Manitoba can have primarily hydroelectric, there's no reason why the much larger and much less densely packed Ontario couldn't as well. But if we did that then the dams would be built and people have cheap power and you can't stick your nose in other people's lives anymore.
If bloody Manitoba can have primarily hydroelectric, there's no reason why the much larger and much less densely packed Ontario couldn't as well. But if we did that then the dams would be built and people have cheap power and you can't stick your nose in other people's lives anymore.
Manitoba and Quebec have had adequetely inexpensive electric, by having hydroelectric. It's relatively common in those regions to have electric heat because the electricity was cheap enough to justify it.
By contrast, Ontario had reasonably priced electricity, and "went green" with the latest new thing and now people are moving to gas heat because they can no longer afford their heating bills.
By contrast, Ontario had reasonably priced electricity, and "went green" with the latest new thing and now people are moving to gas heat because they can no longer afford their heating bills.
A lot of us who used to be fully on the social left have had this same moment.
Makes it easier when the people who were supposedly open-minded and liberal just call you a Nazi and try to punch you for not following the orthodoxy.
Makes it easier when the people who were supposedly open-minded and liberal just call you a Nazi and try to punch you for not following the orthodoxy.
Tbf, assault and fare evasion are quite different things and the ratio would be important.