hotspur

Yeah I basically agree with your point about the unpleasant logic behind such a move, and would only add that Greenland looks appealing if you’re trying to lock down the arctic from both sides of the continent—US has good arctic frontage on Alaska, and Greenland would bookend Canada and allow US more flexibility in countering Russia and expanding oil extraction.

I was trying to think about where this suddenly came from, and the first thing that kept popping up was Trumps current obsession with drill baby drill, the arctic is the last frontier for potentially easy extraction once all the ice melts and Canada, US and Russia have already been playing footsie there for a decade under the guise of science and commercial traffic trying to lay claim to stuff that was ignorable before.

Like some dude got in his ear and convinced him the future is in the arctic. It also adds some further explanation to Trump “joking” about making Canada a state. If it was just economic hardball / a new trade deal, they could leave it at tariffs and the like, but they keep saying they want to make it a state…

All of that makes me sick to my stomach, but as you say there is logic to it.

Yeah I’ve enjoyed this guys commentary in the past. Also he’s so… calm and soothing in how he speaks, which is always a nice find in a content creator.

I’m also noticing this. Since many of the posts are screen caps of text, this is making many posts completely illegible. The artifacting makes the text unreadable.

Well said-I feel the same.

I mean the real comparison is just: did she get enough votes, in states that Clinton lost, where if those people had all voted for Clinton, then Clinton would have won that state. I don’t know the answer, but even if the numbers did cover the margin, I think saying Stein is therefore a spoiler is problematic for a few reasons:

1. It ignores the very real number of voters who chose not to vote democratic or vote at all simply because of Clinton as candidate.
2. it ignores massive mistakes made by a hubristic campaign that couldn’t fathom losing to trump.
3. it supposes that people that voted green, would have gritted their teeth and instead voted Clinton, which is not a safe assumption.

Regarding OP’s argument: if Stein is a spoiler, than the libertarians are also spoilers. Since her being a spoiler assumes a majority of her votes would have gone democratic, we can take the same liberty and assume the libertarians would have instead opted for trump. If they had larger vote numbers than the Green Party got, as OP is saying above, then they cancel out greens spoiler-ness, and in fact represent a slight spoiler in favor of the democrats. I don’t really buy this read for the reasons I mentioned above, but OP’s point still kinda stands.

I’m not personally interested in voting for stein, I’ve heard enough weird stuff about her over the years that I’m not comfortable with her as a candidate. But I don’t buy the constant messaging that “third party votes are wasted votes”. My assumption with people that post these things is that they’re not suggesting it’s OK to not vote. And assumably, they also don’t want you to vote, but vote for the opposition. So it’s just the same old thing: vote the way I want you to.

Hmmm. I want some weird neolib romcom based off this picture. “This Summer. Pushed away from Brussels for doing their job, these two type A’s might just be tumbling into each others arms. They say climate change is going to make the Mediterranean hot, but they didn’t account for these two!”

I feel like originally it was a semi-safe taboo to break that made a standard porn setup seem more forbidden/risqué. It always seemed weird, like how many people have step siblings that also fantasize about them sexually, how big could this be? But it just kept on coming, so to speak.

Now I think it’s just a meme/SEO thing, where you have to include it even if the video is not even pretending to be about that. Also it happened around the same time that websites were pushing/pivoting into more content creator type things, and so it’s probably related to that as well. Like the annoying face+exaggerated reaction thing on YouTube…

Either way, always seemed whacky that everything the sites serve is almost completely step-porn on the front page.

I read the article, it definitely doesn’t bother to think about how something like this would be implemented, but certainly seems to be referring to a dynamic Limiting system… good luck.

I haven’t read the article, so just spitballing here: I have to assume the approach here is to electronically govern the engine to go no faster than the highest speed limit. I don’t know what the limits are in California, but where I live that’d mean the car would be limited to 80mph. If it was electronic, it could be adjusted if then limits were changed.

Otherwise, it’d be insane, and require the crazy infrastructure you describe. And they simply don’t have the money or the wherewithal to build an actual coverage that would allow the limiter to dynamically scale all the time.

Alternatively, I suppose you could imagine a hybrid system—ie an overall limited engine to the max limit, and then some sort of transponder that would throttle the limit down if you were near an important speed limit zone, like a school, which they could manage to deploy a transmitter at… still seems technologically challenging for the state to really pull off consistently though.

Either way, yeah not a fan or including more required tracking tech in vehicles. I don’t think I’d really hate a reasonably limited car—I really can’t justify needing to drive over 80 ever really, even in an emergency, but it would drive me insane to have the car just magically throttling down whenever it thought it was time to. See

Yeah that’s certainly what it seems like.

The radiation warning is near a different atoll, so hard to say if the above is related or not, but it’s kinda blowing my mind how limited reporting is on the subject. It feels like it’s being suppressed in English language media.

An article from 2019, highlighting the risks of this thing becoming a problem: https://www.latimes.com/projects/marshall-islands-nuclear-testing-sea-level-rise/

This is a garbage website/source, but adds some more context:

https://www.msn.com/en-us/weather/topstories/decades-old-nuclear-coffin-on-pacific-island-cracks-under-climate-stress/ar-AA1mOoN9

Apparently a big concrete dome where loads of radioactive shit from old tests has cracked due to weather/climate related wear and tear.

I remember that. Such a weird and excellent name for a loony military operation.

Basically exactly what I think also—it’s not an activity that just stops at some arbitrary point, it’s a power negotiation. They’ll push it as far as they can.

Look I agree—I doubt very much they have a real intention of seceding—it would be a shitshow—but they do do things to float the spectre of secession. But I agree it’s about extreme states rights, and leading by example, since among the red states, Texas has the largest GDP after California in country (or perhaps they’re more now, not sure depending on gas/oil stuff)

The gdp thing is the same reason that there is a marginal Californian secession movement.

I mean I’m sure plenty of Texans have no desire to succeed. But there are multiple real actions that suggest the state has it in mind: separate border enforcement forces, isolated power grid, the Texas rangers/trooper or whatever they’re called. It may all just be maneuvering/bluster, but when you see the state power structures trying to create Amon Bundy-standoffs it does make one wonder.

There also nascent secession movements elsewhere, California has a visible one.

Yeah I mean that’s fine, but you’d run the same risk there with bluff-calling and standoffs. Like clearly Texas is trying to bait the feds into either rolling over for a cheap win, or doing something that they might be able to use to spark something more significant. Not sure which is worse, but I know which one will look more weak/will incite further escalators acts on Texas’ part.

I mean, they are occupying a section of the border of the entire country, and denying, through threat of violence, the federal government/military access to said border. At some point, this simply has to be read as insurrection, and put down. A country only gets to exist and enforce laws by virtue of the implied violence (physical or otherwise) that it can leverage to back it up.

Of course there are complications to this, like the thought that steamrolling these troopers would then spark a greater revolt. But when you have a state doing things like this, particularly a state that has made it abundantly clear they desire to secede and have prepared for secession, I think you need to play hardball. This could be either by forcibly bringing them back in line through state violence, or giving them what they want, in such a way that it ends up being a pyrrhic victory; imagine aggressive border protocols and removal of free travel along the Texas border, intense tariffs and duties on Texan goods, etc… honestly a Texit could be quite beneficial for the country, shifting congress balances somewhat. Add in some statehood’s for PR, Guam and DC and now you’re really cooking with gas.

Who knows though, I’m still finding it hard to believe that the Jan 6 insurrectionists weren’t mowed down in machine gun fire when they penetrated the capitol, so clearly my expectations of government reaction and what actually happens have some daylight between them.

deleted by creator