spidermanchild

You're still making the mistake of treating dems like some single monolith. It's a coalition of just about everything that isn't MAGA at this point, covering all sorts of ideals, yours being just one small part. The answer is still "get a majority of reps that aren't asswipes" and then we'll get legislation we want.

As to DC statehood, it would have gone through if not for Manchin because the Senate "majority" at the time hinged on his support. We need to win these seats with bigger majorities, period, and then they'll pass better bills. The overwhelming majorty of Dems support DC statehood, saying "they won't do it" is not a great take when they literally didn't have the votes.

Sure, assuming you don't think the American rescue plan, bipartisan infrastructure act, CHIPS, IRA, and the first massive tranche of funding for Ukraine are useful. I don't think you realize how short 2 years is for the legislature and how narrow the dem margin was. They achieved significantly more useful legislation than I thought possible. Unfortunately they didn't codify Roe, overhaul SCOTUS, or harden our institutions against fascism, so maybe you're right. Who knows what they could do with a larger majority and control of the House/Senate for 2 more years though - it would be fun to find out, if we could avoid getting all worked up blaming different people we mostly agree with and vote big against fascism.

Some of us also are against massive overuse of glyphosate.

Yes. Use stainless steel, cast iron, and carbon steel. You can cook everything with these just as easily once you learn some basic cooking skills.

Why is the price you put on a full water glass dependent on whether you got an expensive steak vs a cheaper pasta dish though? This is why percentages are so dumb.

Why don't you tell us who Bernie supported and voted for for president the last few cycles, and then tell us why you think you're smarter than him.

I don't have anything useful to add other than Steve Huffman is a greedy pig boy.

They said it was orange corn flour all along, and they have a history of not actually damaging anything but using the appearance of "damage" to make a point. Corn flour is a very simple, inert substance. You're actually demonstrating the hypocrisy that this group is trying to highlight - more concern over something like corn flour damaging these rocks than the damage done by millions of barrels of crude oil extracted every day. Where's your outrage over acid/micro plastic in rain that falls on these stone every week? There will be new species of moss that grow on these rocks, or pollen that blows on them from invasive species, possibly damaging them as the climate heats up - are you worried about that? Why can folks summon outrage over something inert that touched a famous rock, but not for destruction of the actual biosphere? If Stonehenge is that fragile, why are people allowed anywhere near it? You're more than welcome to disagree with them, but if you spend more energy complaining about Just Stop Oil than you do complaining about actual oil companies, you're actually just supporting the oil companies.

https://professortorberts.com/shop/

What kind of ice are you riding on? Snow, even packed snow it usually ok, but turning/braking on ice is a disaster without studded tires. Source - I've crashed on ice several times despite being a very competent rider in all conditions for 3 decades.

I recently picked up a Lenovo 7i 2-in-1 (I got the Intel Evo version due to a nice sale, but wanted AMD) and am currently dual booting with it. No issues with Ubuntu at all that I've encountered.

What does a Roth vs 401k have to do with any of this? I buy index funds in both accounts, nothing to do with company stock programs whatsoever.

Na, relying on individuals to be competent and not distracted is not the logical way to make the system safer. There's a well established hierarchy of how to design safe systems, and relying on individual expertise is at the bottom right above asking pedestrians to wear helmets to cross the street. We need safer streets, fewer, smaller, slower cars that have automated braking features. We need enforcement of speeding and distracted driving. It's fucking absurd how many drivers are on their phones. Making folks take a competency test does nothing for this (although I'm also for stricter licensing, but we also need alternatives to driving so people can live normal loves when we take their driving privileges away).

https://www.osha.gov/sites/default/files/Hierarchy_of_Controls_02.01.23_form_508_2.pdf

Right, but only the first buyer gets to decide what's produced. So someone buying new dumb pickups every two years is flooding the market with gas guzzlers and this results is much more waste than someone doing the same with Camrys. That's not the same definition of waste that you used though, but I wanted to chime in because the new car buyers define the future used market.

You seem to supporting the concept though. More people didn't keep voting left, they voted center/left which sounds like has been moving right, so things stayed the same/went right. Who you vote for matters too - we have multiple opportunities to vote between "dems". To me OPs comment is a simple truism - we can't move left by not electing leftist individuals (and parties by extension). Any other strategy is some pie in the sky game theory.

Are we just going to ignore the millions of acres of vast grasslands that supported like 50 million buffalo in the US 200 year ago? Healthy grassland ecosystems and ruminants are a thing.

It's in the job description for president, so yeah in theory. We just all know, based on years of actions and rhetoric, that Trump has no intention of representing anyone other than himself. He doesn't even care about his own supporters. Don't let that cloud what the job is supposed to entail though.

Maybe the garbage brands. Milwaukee, DeWalt, Makita, etc are very well made, and significantly more powerful than they were 5-10 years ago.

The real issue is one of attribution. "Traced to" isn't the same as "responsible for". I have a hard time blaming Saudi Aramco for massive volume of oil consumption in the US. Yes the oil companies are eco terrorists too but the binary take is absurd.

Saying cars aren't improving in reliability, safety, and efficiency anymore is a bit of a simplification given the massive upheaval underway as the industry electrifies. BEVs are a massive step change in efficiency. My takeaway is just that shortages during COVID increased prices, coupled with inflation and high interest rates making the payments mind boggingly stupid as people are squeezed financially. I wish it was people driving less and riding ebikes more, but not sure any data points to that.

I'm not sure how you've decided to arbitrarily normalize "performance" but normal people are experiencing price drops in many categories. Here's a bunch of other stuff that has dropped in price. Lots of things have been commoditized and benefited from economies of scale, leading to lower prices over time.

https://www.aei.org/carpe-diem/chart-of-the-day-or-century-7/

Wat? The law of conservation of energy tends to disagree. Commuters are generally starting and ending at the same elevation so there's no trick. We're not going to convince anyone to carry heavy loads on bikes by saying "pedal more downhill to smooth out the power requirements if you hate grinding it out on uphills", the answer is just ebikes.

It's not hard to find examples of products where prices have gone down. Prices for literally all electronic goods have been decreasing for a long time, for example.

I appreciate your lived experience, but at the same time the rest of us will seek answers in basic physics concepts, none of which help explain such phenomenon. Is it possible you just got stronger or subconsciously tried harder because you wanted the heavy bike to be faster? Did you add weight but also make sure your bike was well tuned? Tire pressure and a greased chain go a long way. I certainly agree that the weight weenies can go way overboard though.

I'm not trying to convince you, I'm offering a counterpoint to the other 3 people that might read this and otherwise think your strategy goes without question. I just don't understand how you can support a bunch of progressives that largely, if not exclusively, vote for Biden/Hillary as needed, seemingly agreeing with them in everything except this critical point where they make obviously correct choices to vote for least harm. Why wouldn't you just listen to their reasoning? What makes you think you're right on this?

The reason things get shittier is because shitty people like Bush and Trump get elected. The way to defeat them is to actually defeat them, not let them win and hope for a progressive uprising. I don't see how moving backwards helps you move forwards, that's all.

I disagree, a vote for Biden is a vote for his whole apparatus - appointments, advisors, the people at EPA trying to regulate PFAS and carbon, etc. I'm happy to support the majority of this coalition because they are doing some good stuff. I don't understand the need to try and paint Biden voters exclusively as anti-Trumpers, it just serves to gloss over the good that is going on.

That's just the reality of allowing presidents to serve two terms though. There's an incumbent advantage, so to forgo that for the sake of choice every 4 years for both parties vs 4-8 years for both parties is a tradeoff. It's just part of the reality of the framework.

If you'd been paying attention, you'd know it wasn't permanent from the get go.

This feels like semantics. There is "bad", and there is an option that is "better". I don't know why folks feel like they need to use "bad" and "worse", other than to build pessimism. The things people are upset about can't easily fixed by presidents anyway - we need a large base of like minded representatives to do things like housing policy and universal healthcare and education reform and climate change. It's a lot easier to break things than to improve peoples lives, which is why it's critical not to elect people intent on breaking things.

Who did Bernie Sanders endorse and vote for since 2016? Did he follow your strategy, or something smarter?

Being a Bernie voter isn't an insult and that was certainly not my intent, I voted for him too in the primaries. But being a Bernie voter/progressive and then completely ignoring his advice to vote for the actual Dem candidate (Hillary/Biden) becuase you have a super secret strategy that involves effectively not voting, is what I would describe as a gibberish strategy. Pretty sure he understands the stakes and strategies much better than you. The game I'm referring to is our highly imperfect first past the post system, and you're not playing it.

The part I don't understand is why you some folks feel their vote is so sacred that they can't compromise for someone like Biden given the stakes. It's just a vote, I give them out like candy to whoever is better. It's super simple, it's not a marriage vow and it doesn't define you as a human. Real, actual harm will come to our allies with Trump and your thinking implies they're an acceptable sacrifice. Women are literally dying because Trump appointed 3 dog shit SCOTUS justices. Bernie doesn't agree with your strategy, AOC doesn't, but you seem to think you know something special that progressive leadership doesn't.

I'm guessing you would have/did vote for him though. Good luck with your strategy of not even playing the same game