Knightfox

Bullshit. The last election and the next election may be separate things. You might support the right group in the next election, but that doesn't mean you didn't fuck up in the last election. Either you voted for Kamala in the last election or you didn't and as a consequence of that you led to the problem we are currently in.

You have the opportunity to vote against this problem next time, if there is a next time, but that doesn't absolve you from your past mistakes. Don't be a child and hide from past mistakes, admit them and change, don't pretend they weren't mistakes.

This discussion is about owning mistakes, not forgiving them. I'm happy to forgive someone for making a mistake, but before forgiveness comes repentance.

The previous post I responded to said that we shouldn't be "Punching down by portraying people you theoretically want on your side as villains." Well at some point those people need to take responsibility for their own actions rather than pretending they didn't have a part to play.

Maybe when Medicare and Social Security are gone, nonviolent immigrants are in a prison in El Salvador, and trans people are arrested for taking a piss you might start to change your opinion about the last election.

Yeah no. You're trying to make a simple question a more complex debate than it ever was. Either you voted for Kamala or you didn't. You can have lofty opinions and idealistic aspirations, but that isn't how the US electoral system works. If you didn't vote for Kamala then you have a part of the responsibility for the current state of affairs.

If the US had a different system of government then you might have a point, but within the system we have you had a choice. If you didn't make the right choice then you're part of the problem. This statement isn't specific to you, it's to everyone who had this choice.

Part of the US system, whether you like it or not, is playing the game. Even Bernie Sanders played the game when he ran for office. The only fools are the people who think they can ignore the game, play stupid games, win stupid prizes, and still act like they aren't part of the problem.

Maybe but it could crash anyways. JP Morgan tried to stabilize the stock market in 1929 by buying up stocks, but it collapsed anyways and led to the Great Depression.

What do you mean by small and I think context of where you live matters.

Around me there are an abundance of 0.75k-1.5k sqft homes, typically they are older (1940-1980), and they are between $180-250k. They aren't in high demand because they are older, they may need some TLC, they have old styles, they are 45 min - 1 hour drive from the big city, and they may not be as big as people want.

I have coworkers who lament not being able to buy a house, but when you talk to them they are looking at 2500+ sqft, less than 10 years old, 20 min from downtown, but $425k.

EDIT: After typing this I opened Zillow and within 30 seconds found a house across town that's 980 sqft, $115k, 1950's, but you're gonna have a 45 minute (minimum) commute every day unless you leave for work at 5 am.

EDIT 2: Oh and 0.34 acres with no HOA

I think there are more factors at play than you're giving credit. For example, Germany has an average cost of 3000-5000 euro per m^3 which translates to ~$320-540/sqft. In the US the average cost of a house is ~$146/sqft in the south, ~$156/sqft in the midwest, ~$220/sqft in the north, and ~$195/sqft in the west. So while the 8x vs 4x comparison is accurate, you're probably also getting 50% less house in Germany.

A few years ago I saw an article that Gen Z struggled with file organization. In basic terms, search functions have gotten so good that the majority of Gen Z doesn't use file organization on computers or phones. When in a work setting they are confused when digital items need to be organized into a file structure. Part of the problem is that most of them have never had to use a real world filing system. Part of the problem is that they are only used to handling their own disorganized files. In a business setting it generally isn't acceptable to dump all your files into a local "Downloads" file and rely on the search function to locate mission critical files.

When the article I am referencing came out other people stated that they had experienced similar phenomena in the PC world. They remembered when soldering was an expected norm of PC building, but with the passage of time it was no longer necessary or expected.

I hope for Canada's sake, and for the sake of NATO and the EU, that Canada puts on some big boy pants and boosts its military. I have seen a lot of talk such as yours, but the reality is that Canada's military is a joke. Canada is so far behind in it's military spending obligation for NATO that they don't even have a timeline for catching up. Canada's airforce is 1/3rd the size of France's and France is the 10th largest Airforce in the world. The Canadian Army only has 22,000 active troops while the entire Canadian Armed Forces is only around 68,000 strong.

Canada has had troops on the ground for a lot of global military events, but they've almost never fielded a significant number. In the Gulf War they had ~4,500 troops, the Coalition had >950,000 troops and 700,000 of them were from the US. In the War in Afghanistan Canada had ~40,000 troops over 13 years (Operation Enduring Freedom) and at any one point had no more than 2,500 troops deployed. Meanwhile the US had 1.9 million deployed in the same period and at it's peak had over 100,000 troops deployed at once.

Oh but we gotta talk about WW1 and WW2 because people always take it there. In WW1 Canada deployed 620,000 troops while the US deployed 4.7 million. In WW2 the Allied Powers had a combined total over over 80 million troops, the US had around 16.5 million while Canada had 1.1 million.

As an American who likes Canada and doesn't agree with the current US political direction, I absolutely hope Canada puts it's money where it's mouth is. When Russia invaded Crimea in 2014 NATO members were supposed to increase their spending to prepare to stand up to Russia and as of 2021 only 5 of the 31 states had met that goal. As of 2024 only 8 states still had not met the goal, but Canada had the special distinction of being the only member state with no timeline on when they would meet that goal.

In a Politico article from last year

“The Canadian public doesn’t really see the need,” said Philippe Lagassé, Barton chair at Canada’s Carleton University. “If forced to choose between defense spending, social programs or reducing taxes, defense would always come last. So there’s no political gain to meeting the pledge.”

With the US threatening to leave NATO the EU has stepped up with a rearmament plan as recently as this week, let's hope Canada does the same.

Remember the time BLM protesters disrupted Bernie's primary rally in 2015?

https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/politics/black-lives-matter-protesters-shut-down-bernie-sanders-rally/

Talk about shooting yourself in the foot

And just categorically saying any alternative must be just as bad is just a non-sequitur, there’s no reason that should be true. Cookware is a good example, cast iron works just as well, is not as bad, the only downside compared to teflon is weight. But it’s not like sending us back to the stone age or anything…

You can have your own opinion here, but anything which performs like PFAS compounds, in the variety of uses that PFAS is used, will almost certainly be bad. In general when you make new compounds and materials which are more complex their potential health impacts are worse. PFAS is already an extremely complex material and while broad sweeping statements might not be 100% accurate, I wouldn't bet that it's replacement would be better for people.

It's another thing altogether if you are recommending going backward in the development chain, cookware is a good example here but it's limited case underlies the ubiquity of PFAS. Hell, PFAS is a major component in computer part manufacturing and is part of the reason computing technology has progressed as it has.

Um, no it doesn't.... maybe you're confusing micrograms for nanograms?

I don't have a lot of thoughts on the matter, I know a good bit about PFAS, not microplastics. Grams vs Nanograms is a huge difference, but I don't know if that's detrimental or not. Looking over the link you provided the study provides it's own description of limitations which may or may not be trivial.

You can't have it needed in some stuff and critically dangerous if it's a bio-accumulating chemical that virtually never breaks down. To reduce it enough to not be a hazard world wide you would functionally have to stop using it everywhere.

I haven't seen any definitive results on dangerous health levels, 4.4 ng/kg might be it, but then other studies show people with mg/L of blood concentration. Overall the effects of exposure seem to depend on more than just the concentration, such as health status, exposure duration, magnitude of exposure, and how lucky you got with the genetic lottery. Even then we are fairly certain it is bad, we just don't know what or how specifically. I would also throw caution at any study using ng as a serious measurement here, especially over prolonged exposure. The problem with measuring on such a low level is that you have far too much uncertainty to claim any true accuracy, at best these studies are guessing when they throw out numbers. Hell, the EPA just came out with a standardized method for analyzing PFAS last year.

At those levels of exposure you're probably getting it just from eating commercially grown fruits and vegetables, because it can bio-accumulate in those as well.