Hes the Swedish chef tho, not the Norwegian chef.

You misunderstand, I am not saying “make sure he spends it responsibly”. Nobody has has “made” him do this at all, and I didn’t advocate for a policy of doing so. What I’m saying is that I don’t think this particular use is worthy of condemnation the way his other actions are, because in the long run I think that this specific thing will end up benefiting people other than him no matter if he intends for that to happen or not (even if the American healthcare system prevents access, which I’m not confident it will do completely, not every country has that system, and it’s statistically improbable that the US will have it forever, and research results are both durable and cross borders). That sentiment isn’t saying that it excuses his wealth, just that I think people are seeing only the negatives in this merely because of the association with Altman’s name and ignoring the potential benefits out of cynicism. The concept is just as valid with him funding it as it would be had he been condemning it instead.

The response to something beneficial being only available to the rich shouldn’t be to avoid developing that thing, it should be to make it available to everyone. The failures of the US healthcare and economic systems don’t suddenly make developing new medical techniques a bad thing. Human augmentation is another issue from curing genetic disease, though I’d personally argue that wouldn’t be a bad cause either, with the same caveat about it availability. It at least has more potential to improve somebody’s life somewhere down the line than just buying a yacht with his ill gotten gains or some other useless rich person toy would.

I’m not sure I get the universal negativity to this. Like sure, Altman sucks as a person, and an individual having enough money to significantly bankroll research like this is a sign of an economic failure, but surely curing or preventing genetic disease is just about the most uncontroversial use human genetic modification could have?

As someone from the southern US who moved to New England, can confirm, the tea up here is very hit or miss unless one makes it oneself. I once got some “sweet tea” at a restaurant that tasted spicy instead of sweet somehow, no idea how one messes it up such as to get that to happen. Half the time its been so sour it tastes like they just dumped tea bags in lemonade.

Isn’t this basically just how a recumbent bicycle (or quadracyle I guess) works?

This whole saga is like Trump found a cursed monkey’s paw and wished that the internet would believe he’s had sex with a consenting adult.

Honestly to me cough syrup tastes so incredibly bad as to be worse than the coughing. The cherry flavor has literally put me off of cherry flavored anything (except actual cherries) ever since childhood because it’s my mental default for “tastes like nasty medicine flavor” now.

Honestly I actually liked BZ more than the original, but it’s difficult for me to figure out why exactly. I play those games a bit differently from the proper way, I basically ignore the plot beyond what is needed to get the tools and location I want and mostly just play them to build and decorate bases in a pretty environment with survival elements to make the base feel like it has design requirements and resource constraints, like Minecraft almost, but I’m not going to say that BZ has prettier environments for that either. Might be the creature design, my favorite subnautica critters are mostly in BZ, though not all, and they feel like they fit together more tightly than the ones in the first game, if that makes sense, like one can look at certain features and get a greater sense of them all seeming to descend from a few common ancestors.

Im not saying the stereotype of “conservative people living in trailer park style homes” isn’t classist, I’m suggesting that actively spreading it might not have been the objective of the OP, and that them doing so might have been more a case of not thinking through all the implications of what they were saying than an actual antipathy for people who live in cheap housing. I do realize its problematic even if so, I’ve spent a portion of my childhood in a place like that myself, I just felt a bit uneasy seeing some people here appear to assume the worse interpretation was the intended one when it still seemed ambiguous to me which it was, and that discomfort made me a bit defensive about it.

This may be a naivety of mine, but I struggle to communicate myself a lot and as a result I tend to look for the most benign intent that could lead to a given statement and assume that one until proven otherwise, because whenever I end up being the person phrasing something poorly or in a way that causes offense, it feels a lot easier to handle and address when people calmly point out what is wrong with it and why than when people jump on it as proof of a character flaw, and it’s very easy to project one’s own struggles and modes of thinking onto other people one runs across, I guess. I’m probably overthinking it all.

If one wanted a generous interpretation, it could be pointing out the irony in a poor person advocating for the interests of the rich that keep people like themselves in that position.

Tbf, the 10% that are real people still would represent more people than the handful of people I both know and can easily reach to talk to outside. And even then, what about when one gets home? Can’t stay out all the time

protogen snacks

Oh it wasnt my intention to make it sound like climate change doesnt negatively impact anything, but “these things get more expensive” is a very different thing than “these crops are going extinct and theres nothing that can be done about it” the way that headline seems to imply.

Even fusion constrains you to the limits of the rocket equation. Laser sails on the other hand, could let you put the bulk of your propulsion system in orbit of the sun or something where you don’t have to carry it with you.

Honestly the newest version of them does look kind of cool, though maybe it’ll get stale once they’re like 10 years old and everywhere.

That’s not what that seems to say at all. It doesn’t even look like it says “if we do nothing, we can’t grow these crops anymore”. It seems to be specifically about stratospheric aerosol injection (a specific geoengineering technique that we haven’t even committed to trying as yet), and suggests that if you use it to keep global temperatures stable, there can still be changes in where these crops can grow because changes to things like rainfall and humidity. I’ve not read the entire thing but from a glance at it’s conclusions, their simulations suggest that the crops would remain economically important to their growing regions under all their simulations, just with the viable amount that can be grown and the specific areas for doing it changed per region, and that using SAI to offset warming doesn’t simply result in the same yields as not having the warming would have the way one might otherwise expect.

Microbes are still made of chemicals, it’s just different chemicals

That’s another take of mine tbh, if clothes hold obnoxiously visible wrinkles, the fabric is too stiff to be comfortable in my view anyway. I try to avoid buying and wearing anything that needs to be ironed if I can get away with it.

Folding laundry is a complete waste of time and effort. If it’s been through the wash it’s clean, it’s not going to be any cleaner just because you spent half an hour doing laundry origami.