I mean, if the bar was mostly regulars, and they're all used to one of them bringing their dog in, and letting them sit at the bar? I imagine that would become mundane quite quickly. Humans can get used to damn near anything.
Injections. Not even close. They bypass the liver, so less stress on that. You get more steady levels, especially if you use an ester like estradiol enanthate. Only have to take medicine once every 1-2 weeks. No awkwardly applying a cream and waiting a long time for it to slowly dry out/absorb. None of the swings in blood levels through the day. No having to remember to take a pill multiple times per day. Injections are clearly the superior choice. About the only thing superior are implants, which last 3-4 months. But those are expensive, difficult to find, and have to be done in a doctor's office. Injections can be done at home or even DIY.
I hate this kind of artificial limitations but in this case I’m totally fine.
This is an environmental disaster. We're building cars with equipment that will never be used. It costs more materials, time, and energy to manufacture a 300 HP engine than a 200 HP engine. VW might make all models with a 300 HP engine and then require a subscription to increase the power from 200 to 300 HP. Yet, what if you don't want to use that extra power? You're still stuck with the weight of the heavier engine! You're hauling around a uselessly heavy engine, and you'll be doing so from the moment you buy the car until the end of its life. Even if you don't want to pay for the subscription-only equipment, you're still paying for the higher gas costs to haul all this redundant crap around with you. And the environment takes an unnecessary hit for us to manufacture equipment that will never be used. This is an environmental disaster.
There's a manufacturer of high voltage transmission towers I'm aware of that has seen its annual revenue double over just the last 2-3 years. It's a booming time for the electrical transmission industry. Good work if you can get it.
Can we make "secular saints" a thing? Why should we reserve the title of "Saint" specifically for the Catholic Church? I think we should just get in the habit of referring to any unambiguously good person, who has performed great acts of generosity and selflessness, as a saint. They don't even have to be religious. If someone wants to interpret it religiously, they can say that anyone so good is almost certainly bound for Heaven, but it need not be religious. Why can't we have secular saints? Why can't we have Saint Stephen of San Jose or Saint Fred of Latrobe?
And that's why Mamdani won, he wasn't promising vague platitudes. He was promising very specific actions that are entirely within the power of the mayor's office to enact. A lot of his agenda will simply be signing legislation passed by the City Council that Mayor Adams vetoed. He convinced people to vote for him because he not only had a ideas, but a very specific and tangible plan on how to achieve them. And Mamdani's changes are good.
China values actual technical skills and knowledge. The US values talentless hacks who exploit the labor of those that actually have technical skills and knowledge.
The solution is to just spam solar panels. Solar power is getting so comically cheap, that this is the solution we'll likely use. Have enough storage for overnight. Then spam so many solar panels that your grid can meet demand even on a cloudy day in winter. You have enough to meet demand at the lowest productivity point in the year. Then the rest of the year we have cheap hyper-abundant power.
Exactly. No one ever accused Manchin or Lieberman of "purity testing" for refusing to support non-conservative positions. When a centrist digs in their heels and refuses to compromise, they're just "being pragmatic." When a progressive does it, they're "purity testing." "Vote blue no matter who" is a farce.
Unfortunately, this "working with" is always a one-way street. Never do centrists say, "well, we just have to support the progressive cause to maintain party loyalty."
If you were living in 1930s Germany, you would have signed up to be a member of the Nazi party. Don't kid yourself, you personally absolutely would have done it. Maybe you wouldn't have been one of those actually enlisting in the SS. But you absolutely would have been one of those that joined the Nazi party to keep their job. Do you have any idea how many regular Germans did that, just to keep their ordinary civilian jobs? They convinced themselves that it was for the greater good. After all, let's say you're a judge or college professor. If you don't join the Nazi party, then an actual militant Nazi might get your job instead. Wouldn't it be better to just join the Nazi party, keep your job, and just try not to do anything too evil in your role? Joining the Nazi party is the lesser of two evils!
When you have no red lines, there is no limit to how deep into Hell you will fall.
I'm focusing my efforts on helping people in my own community, the people folks like Newsom and yourself are leaving for dead. I'm quite involved in political and activist circles. But I will be damned if I vote for someone that wants to take away my rights.
If you don't have any red lines, you're no different than the literal historical Nazis. They also thought they were doing what they did for the greater good. The road to Hell is paved with the lesser of two evils. You have to have some standards, some lines that cannot be crossed. Otherwise there is no end to what evil you will endorse. You'll find yourself working as a concentration camp guard, after somehow convincing yourself you're taking the less evil path. After all, who better to be a concentration camp guard than yourself? You're not hateful yourself, better you than an actual militant racist, right? Why shouldn't you work as a camp guard? It's for the greater good.
Yeah, it's one thing to imagine Hitler having a change of heart back when he was a painter, before he really did anything. But let's says he's already done some absolutely unforgivable things, already killed a million people. Then the ghosts from A Christmas Carol show up and somehow convince him to change his ways. There's now a good Hitler, somehow trying to end this vast evil empire that he himself created. The Wermacht is already deep into the Soviet Union. You think Hitler's just going to call up Stalin and be like, "hey, can we just call this whole thing off, call it good here?" And how does good Hitler balance using his power to undo his past actions vs accepting moral responsibility? He could resign immediately, but then he's putting other evil men in charge of the war machine.
Or phrased another way, you get Freaky Fridayed into Hitler's body on July 15, 1941. What would you do in that situation? It's even worse in that case, as you aren't even morally responsible for Hitler's crimes.
It makes sense intuitively. By the time you become a billionaire, you can live wherever you want and have any kind of lifestyle you desire. Billionaires living in Spain live in Spain because they want to live in Spain. And all wealth past a certain point is meaningless, just a number for bragging rights. Whether someone has $10 billion or $7 billion makes zero difference in their actual lifestyle or quality of life. If you're already in a country you're happy with, why leave for a tax that has absolutely no impact on your quality of life?
Only if you're taking spiro.