Congratulations! My pets and I are cheering for you. This is our favorite sport to watch.

👏 (sincerely)

I hope you keep as much momentum as you can.

Yeah, they set the family shelters on fire because the families had dug under them to hide from the gunfire.

Not just the strikers, their families, too, including children and infants.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ludlow_Massacre

A little drinkin’

A little drawin’

While deep inside me

There’s a feeling that’s gnawin’

A grand artistic vision that the world needs to see,

A message and an image crying out to be free

And now I take another sip for my BAC

From this fine fermented beverage with a high ABV

1960s “That didn’t happen” Early(ish) research on climate change is buried.

1970s “And if it did, it wasn’t that bad.” Severity of impacts downplayed

1980s “And if it was, it’s not a big deal.” Oil companies form a coalition to oppose regulation."

1990s “And if it is, it wasn’t my fault.” Think tanks begin switch to accepting climate change but rejecting it’s anthropogenic nature."

2000s “And if it was, I didn’t mean it.” Oil companies try to disavow their earlier knowledge of research, engage in greenwashing.

2010s “And if I did, you deserved it.” BP, among others, encourages consumers to limit their carbon footprint to save the environment, despite the fact that the majority of contribution is from industrial and commercial sources.

This timeline is sloppy. There’s a lot of overlap. I’m more trying to paint a picture of what happened. In reality, the research is older. Some parties are still trying to argue the climate either isn’t changing or that the earth is getting colder. Chaos is an important part of disinformation.

I like to imagine how the world would look if socialized healthcare were idealized the same way as oil/guns:

“Come and take it! 💉”

“We call 911!”

“A healthy society is a polite society”

“Better to have healthcare and not need it than to need healtcare and not have it.”

“Heal, baby, heal!”

“Health is wealth.”

“Domestic healthcare. National strength.”

“More coverage, more jobs.”

“Lower costs start with public health.”

Yo mama so leaky even BP won’t drill her.

That’s a grimly salient point. I wonder how long it will take to advertise them as carbon-negative.

Reminded me of the following for some reason:

https://multimedia-english.com/print/preview/german-coastguard-44

They tell on themselves constantly, but their audience is deaf to it.

The correct way to hold it:

It’s defined by the ICD and DSM. If it were too broad, it would be unknowable to us at this point without some major new discovery that changes the definition. Having said that, there aren’t really enough psych resources to go around so a lot of people are walking around undiagnosed but with very obvious symptoms. I don’t think this is bandwagoning. I think it’s people behaving rationally in response to the limitations of a relatively new and growing branch of medicine. Regardless, I’m happy to see people starting to acknowledge and accept a broader diversity of psychological states. I feel like it at least helps people get treatment, if they want it, by reducing the stigma around mental health diagnoses.

He’s not wrong, but as Eddie Izzard once said, I think the guns help.

I wonder if this could be supported with a task-swap group irl or even a social media platform. I have things that are hard for me to start but easy to accomplish and things that are easy for me to start but hard to finish. I lucked out because my partner has the opposite perspective in which are hard to start vs finish. We swap tasks all the time.

Thanks for the diagnostic tools. I will now reorganize life my life accordingly.

I don’t know what to think anymore. I guess I’ll have to ask ChatGPT what to do.

• Stardew Valley

• Halo

• POE II

• Starfox 64

• Super Mario World

• Skyrim

• Oblivion

• Disco Elysium

• Civilization VI

Okay, I’m aware of the irony of what I’m about to say, but please hear me out before getting out the torches and pitchforks. I couldn’t think of an ethical use for private jets, so I asked ChatGPT (Yes, the coal-powered theft engine). It gave the following (unedited):

That’s a great and nuanced question. While private jets are often criticized — and rightly so — for their environmental impact and association with luxury excess, there are some contexts where their use can be argued to be ethically justifiable, especially when alternatives are limited or time-sensitive. Here are a few examples:

1. Medical Emergencies & Humanitarian Aid

• Air ambulances are essentially private jets equipped for rapid medical response. They save lives in time-critical emergencies, transporting organs for transplant or patients who can’t fly commercially.
• In disaster zones, private aviation can be used to bring in aid, doctors, or evacuate people when commercial options are unavailable or too slow.

2. Remote Access for Critical Work

• Some humanitarian workers, scientists, or engineers travel to remote areas with no viable commercial flights. In such cases, private aircraft may be the only way to access those locations efficiently and safely.
• This applies to environmental researchers, doctors serving indigenous communities, or people inspecting infrastructure in inaccessible regions.

3. Time-Critical Leadership Roles

• In rare cases, heads of state, negotiators, or executives overseeing urgent crisis response may use private jets if the time saved could mean large-scale impact (e.g., preventing war escalation, saving a company that employs thousands).

4. Cargo Over Passenger Transport

• Private aircraft aren’t always carrying people — they can also be used for urgent supply deliveries, such as vaccines, scientific samples, or critical parts needed to fix failing infrastructure.

Important Caveat

Even in these ethically defensible uses, there’s room for scrutiny. The key ethical tension lies in necessity vs. convenience — is the jet being used because there’s truly no better option, or just to avoid discomfort?

If you’re thinking of a specific situation, I can help analyze whether it might be ethically justifiable too.

I hate to admit it, but I think it’s correct. The existence of private jets isn’t the problem, they’re just overabundant because they’re not taxed adequately. Having said that, I believe you’re right in that, if a small passenger jet were to crash, it’s more likely to make the world a better place than a worse place.

Yes, those airports need throngs of people to defend those billionaires before they can slither away to safety. So many protectors.