Do you have a source for this? My only reference here is hiking at > 10 000 ft (3000 m), and from that I can say that this seems very unlikely: If you stay at 3000 for a couple hours without acclimating first, you will definitely start to feel the effects. To be fair, you’re usually not moving around a lot in an aircraft, but a couple hours at 3000 m can make you feel sluggish and weak, and even a bit light-headed, you could even get a mild headache from oxygen deprivation.

Note that not everyone will see severe symptoms already at 3000 m. Plenty of people can go to 4000 m before seeing significant symptoms. However, given that I’ve never heard of anyone experiencing altitude sickness in a properly pressurised aircraft, it seems unlikely to me that they’re pressurised to 3000 m.

It’s not deflection, it’s exactly their point. In a healthy economy, inflation is low but positive, and the same or lower than the general increase in wages.

The US (and a bunch of other places) are currently having a hard time because inflation outran wage increases. In many countries, this is back under control (wages are now outpacing inflation) and we’re pretty quickly catching back up.

Part of the major problem in the US is the complete lack of regulation and unionisation. When we had similar inflation in Norway, our wage increases nearly matched the inflation, and the past two years, the wage increases have been very high compared to inflation in order to “recover”. When you don’t have any system in place to enforce this kind of response to inflation, it just leads to the owning class getting a larger share of the pie (what has happened in the US).

Equating someone lacking talent for something with literally being disabled is a pretty stupid take.

If you need more than 32 GB of RAM, I’m pretty sure you’re no longer looking for a laptop. I mean sure, you can get up to 128 GB on a macbook, but if you need that kind of volume you’re doing professional work on something that is specifically extremely RAM-intensive.

I didn’t support the apple-mouse, in fact I don’t like it at all, primarily because I don’t like the feel of it. Personally, I use a completely ordinary, cheap mouse with two buttons and a scroll wheel.

I really don’t see backing for this take like… anywhere?

Sure: Linux gives you absolute control, I won’t debate that. I work on a Mac however, and haven’t yet found any guard rails that a simple sudo !! won’t get me passed.

Windows on the other hand requires you to do all sorts of arcane shit if you want to do anything at all outside of checking boxes in a shitty GUI to enable/disable features.

My 2022 macbook pro has a charging port, four USB-C ports (one of which can be used for charging as well), an HDMI port, a minijack port, and an SD card slot.

I use homebrew for package management, and have yet to be dissatisfied with that.

This machine also happens to have 32 GB of RAM.

I don’t know about mouse-support, but I mostly use my keyboard for everything, and have yet to miss having more than two buttons and a scroll wheel on my mouse. With my previous (2012) macbook however, I used a five-button mouse sometimes.

Really don’t know where you get your info on macs, but you it seems you missed the phone when you were called back sometime around 2010.

I agree with the sentiment that this isn’t directly bad as long as they’re fighting the russians. However, if their motivation to fight is just to learn how to use UAV’s for a cartel, they’re likely to desert at the moment shit hits the fan. This hurts morale badly.

Secondly, the countries in which the cartels operate will be more inclined to actively take Ukraines side if they take this seriously.

Finally,

You can’t prosecute ppl for crimes they did not yet commit.

To be frank: Yes you can (in a sense). Planning a crime (robbery, murder, etc.) can often be prosecuted as a crime in itself, often under the condition that the person in question appears capable or near-capable of doing whatever they were planning to do.

Looks at litterally half the population: “This is a minority”.

Exactly: I can understand that an open layout makes life harder for people in an already oppressive environment. This applies regardless of why the environment is oppressive any individual.

Claiming that “open environments are sexist” implies that they’re somehow inherently oppressive towards one gender. That’s absolute bullshit in my opinion: Open environments are just generally crap for productivity.

“Beaches that allow X” sounds like some dystopian shit, where people are regulating and controlling what you can and cannot bring into some semi-obscure public place.

Any beach I go to is literally a spot by the water you walk to if you want to hang out and cool down. I can understand regulations if we’re talking about some inner-city “beach”, but luckily most beaches is the world are places you can be pretty alone.

I think we’ll see either a back line (political) collapse, that causes a massive retreat/treaty, or: Gradual degradation to the point where a small breach in the russian position causes a massive route like what we saw in Kharkiv. Unmechanised forces stretched so thin and with so low morale that just a small crack causes a massive collapse and the subsequent capture and/or elimination of massive amounts of equipment and personnel, which makes russia unable to continue the war.

Sorry, but what?

I hate open-plan layouts as much as the next guy, but how on earth are they sexist?

No. I definitely do not want to fuck all that nasty shit.

As a side note, I prefer not to fuck feet either.

I had fantasies about women initiating affection, taking active roles during intimacy, and expressing a primal hunger to take the reins

In my personal experience, this is pretty much the norm. Women can have just as much sex drive as men, and can express it just as “aggressively”. In every relationship I’ve had, there are times where I’ll initiate, times where she’ll initiate, and times where we’ll both look at each other with a “Yes. Right now.” look. Note that I’ve never been into any BDSM or other “exciting” kink stuff, I’m just talking about initiative and passionately expressing that “I want you” feeling.

Of course, this is a side of women you won’t see until you get with someone that both wants you and feels comfortable enough you to express it.

So long story short: What you’re looking for is pretty much the norm as far as I can tell.

Now it actually seems like we agree on some stuff! I largely agree with what you’re saying here, and it seems much more nuanced and less extreme than “loans bad, go back to monke”, which was kind of my initial impression.

I guess we just differ on the base idea of how to finance what you could rightly call “gambles” on the future (buying equipment or property to start a business, funding an education, etc.). I think that with proper regulation, which prevents both banks and individuals from taking too much risk, and prevents exploitation, loans are a sustainable and reasonable way to do this. You seem to disagree that it’s possible to regulate a debt-system to the point where it becomes sustainable, and therefore think we should try very hard to change the premise that debt is required to run our economy.

Again, I can agree that the government being solely responsible for construction of housing could be a decent idea, but then we’re no longer operating under any kind of free housing market.

You could argue that the housing market should be 100 % regulated (I’m not necessarily opposed to this idea), but that again breaks the premise of not drastically changing the society. We’re talking about whether loans are a necessity (or even a positive thing) in our society as it exists now.

Further,

Come on. Just try to think of ways things could work differently.

Honestly: Why? In a decently regulated market where exploitation is largely prevented (e.g. what we have in the Nordics) seems to work pretty well. I can acquire resources now through a loan, and use those resources to be better off in the future. Private companies can take out loans to build housing and industry, and pay them back later. This benefits everyone, because we end up having decent housing, industry that otherwise could never be built, and more companies paying taxes.

I just don’t see where in this picture the idea of loans becomes a “big bad wolf” that is inherently negative.

Beijing denounces the sanctions as a threat to economic cooperation.

… yes. That’s exactly the point.

I’m not at all sure about this, but isn’t there decent reason to believe that the gas giants have solid cores? I mean, earth generates plenty of heat in its core (largely from nuclear decay I believe), I don’t see why the same thing couldn’t be going on in Uranus?

Build differently. It’s that simple. Our ancestors figured it out for 100k years

Yes, it is an option to revert to living in houses with earth floors, and no electricity, plumbing, or running water. My family has a cabin like that (sans the earth floor). I love staying there, and could probably build one in a year with a friend or two.

It doesn’t really scale well though, so cities are out of the picture. Besides, it goes against the premise of something that works without drastically altering society. While there were large cities in earlier times (e.g. Rome around AD 0), these were largely built by slave labour. In earlier times, cities were also famous for offering terrible, cramped living conditions for common people, and disease was rife, due to inadequate waste management and clean water supply.

So yes, our ancestors “figured it out for 100k years”, in the sense that they figured out how to build cramped, disease ridden cities using slave labour (alternatively near-slave workers). It’s not feasible to house the modern world population on dispersed farms (the “Amish” solution), we need towns/cities.

In the end, the solutions you’re pointing to would work for a far smaller global population, but not today. Even at 1700’s level populations (roughly 7.5 % of the current), you would need to accept 1700’s level living conditions. Whether we should drastically reduce living conditions in order to reduce the cost of housing and infrastructure is a fair debate to have, but a completely different one than the one at hand.

If that’s the side you’re coming from then I guess I can understand your argument. I was thinking from an animal welfare perspective, and the argument (which I’ve seen made before) that hunting is inhumane and that people should get their meat at the store instead.

As a side-note, I would really like a link to something backing up that people who hunt for food are more likely to be psychopaths.