Like I said 6 hours ago, just because I can’t mitigate all of the risk doesn’t mean that I shouldn’t mitigate as much as I reasonably can.

My 3d printer is a fire hazard, but that’s no excuse for leaving a bunch of candles unattended.

Yeah, I’m of two minds on 2a. On the one hand, in a country where anyone could have a gun, everyone should, and if they start trying to round up political dissidents to put in camps, I should hope that enough of us have guns that we can successfully prevent it.

On the other hand, we are the only country where school shootings regularly happen. A 16 year old kid was shot to death at a high school two days ago, and I didn’t even know about it until I looked it up.

This is the one topic where I do not know where I stand. I don’t know if the very real, very present innocent people dying on a regular basis is worth the potential to resist tyranny, should the need arise.

Hell, I’m still anti-authoritarian for individuals (companies should be heavily regulated).

That’s more or less my political ideology. “I think gay married couples should be allowed to protect their weed farms with guns.” But as soon as it comes to income, I’m hardcore authoritarian. Don’t even get me started on how I feel about rental properties. What I have to say about landlords could get me a visit from an FBI party van

They had a pretty shitty take on wealth redistribution

Also compared social security to a pyramid scheme

I don’t love their stance on gun regulations

They do have some pretty based takes though. They’re against the death penalty, and they’ve always been right about vaccines

Incredibly based take on drug regulations as well

You are correct, and it doesn’t change my stance at all. It’s still worth it to mitigate risk even if you can’t mitigate all risk.

Like, the fact that my 3d printer is already a fire hazard does not justify leaving a bunch of candles unattended

I mean at the time, religion and science were closely intertwined, with primarily religious scholars studying astronomy and astrology

The idea that science and dogma are entirely separate things is a great way to turn yourself into a Richard Dawkins. Everyone has some ideology or another that will influence any research they do.

Obviously, but I trust my Linux mint laptop a hell of a lot better than my aunt’s XIPPLG branded wifi cat feeder that she bought off Amazon

As of November 3rd 2020, that’s true, and I voted A.

In between elections, we had a chance to get C in the race, and we failed.

As of November 5th 2024, it was actually option D or B, and I voted D.

Maybe if option A had dropped out earlier and let us have a primary, option C would have been in the race. Maybe he would have even won.

I was thinking way too small with my answer. I didn’t even consider the idea of telling NASA that I could fund any and every project they want done, if they just send me to the Moon

If money is no object, then you can find some incredibly expensive way to travel which does not contribute to pollution. So no, there is no moral dimension

True, but also that flight is going with or without you so you may as well jump on

Mount Blue Sky, Colorado. Home of the highest elevation optical astronomical observatory who’s operators I share a language with

Edit: hey wait, I just realized I went down the wrong argumentative avenue. The fact that Biden was better than Trump doesn’t mean he was pro-union or fit for office. Conover remains correct

We could have had option C

I like how the legend implies that I will be licking these elements, whether it’s a good idea or not

I’m licking gaseous nitrogen right now

None of them, that’s why the only things in my house that connect to the internet are my computers, game consoles, and cell phone

Biden wasn’t pro-union, and he was unfit for office. Sounds like Conover was absolutely right

Literally the only thing I can find is an opinion piece about his electric vehicle video.

Notably, Electrek offered discount codes for Teslas around the time the article was published, giving them a massive incentive to lie about Conover’s credibility

Some say the number is even less than 50%

You acknowledged the awful history, and then proceeded to ask why we shouldn’t do it again.

I personally don’t agree that overpopulation is a problem we need to try and solve. If overpopulation kills people, let it. We won’t go extinct. It’s not our place to try and solve a self-correcting problem by deciding whose human rights we should violate.