Added benefit: preserving media that execs would rather just harvest a tax loss on.

Sorry my crew and I were out on a voyage, what was it they did exactly? 🏴‍☠️

…until morale improves? Dually noted lol.

I said as much multiple times.

The point of that statement was to highlight that it is possible to construct something that does not allow for consolidation and corruption of power… which it did. Your view simply was looking at present day examples which, as you correctly identified, do not work. That doesn’t mean nothing can work however … which is why I disagreed.

It’s a fun mental exercise to what if and try to construct something that could work. Can’t tear something down without considering what rebuilding it would look like.

I disagree. It’s about execution - creating an environment that is resistant to corrosion. A standing force can absolutely be viewed in that manner - which is why it cannot be a single static standing force.

The UN is the right idea but it needs teeth. And it needs the teeth to be double sided. If boots are on the ground peacekeeping they should be without bias and secondary interest. An attack on a peacekeeper has no guarantee of the creed nor country of origin of that keeper.

Peacekeeping should be like a draft. Every country that participates must provide and maintain a set number of rolling participants. These people will serve and train initially in humanitarian deployments with others… half way through their ‘term’ they should be moved to peacekeeping duties. This is idealized but would be good for both building trust amongst peacekeepers and goodwill towards them. This solves the military portion (roughly) - I have a lot of thoughts on this and believe it to be solvable… it just won’t be. No country gets to benefit therefore it has no merit.

That covered the military side… when talking about the economic side: the peacekeepers (let’s say un for simplicity) carry the ability to (by vote) censure a country and cut it off from direct trade / support. At that time any trade is then routed through the UN and it becomes the middleman. This allows economic pressures to be precisely controlled on an area. Once that country falls in line, by majority vote, operations are restored. Once again this is idealized and has no obviously advantaged party … so it has no merit and will never occur.

Basically everyone is equally held accountable and equally invested. Of course this means everyone gets a seat at the table and everyone gets one vote. I’m certain we can already see why this has 0 chance of ever happening. Those in power seek to keep it - very few will willingly give some away.

I imagine American Pie would have had a far more interesting scene if this played out there …

…because you are only a Lvl. 2 Druid

This is clearly phase one of making a peanut butter cup.

Baggy means cargo pants and moar pockets. Yesssss. Also don’t forget about the mid-phase between the two: bell-bottoms and boot cuts. I forget when they show up but I feel like we are due soon…

For the afflicted? No.

For us as a species? No.

For capitalism? God yes.

Thin people consume the least. Once we stop growing we stop needing new clothes. Obesity changes this. Clothes wear out faster, you need new sizes. Obesity leads to depressive states where people buy more to feel better. Speaking of more: eat more! Have some sweets to feel better!

Be bold. Be beautiful. Be you (for us!)

Clothing stores and food chains done with you? Guess you are broken now…

Welcome to the medical system you will now need to rely on to function and stay alive! Till death do we part.

Obesity is an epidemic and it’s too profitable to actually do anything about. They don’t care about you, your feelings, or your health. You are literally livestock to these corporations that you think are caudling you and your way of life. This is a wake up call.

Obesity is difficult to conquer. It requires change and persistence. It requires support. Not everyone can achieve a ‘healthy ideal’ but everyone can do better.

Oh, I’m fully aware. Tribalism is the lizard brain going deeeep in the paint. The problem is this: peaceful culture doesn’t fight back - aggressive culture exploits this: which one thrives? We have systematically bred for and codified our warlike nature. This is the result. Is it fixable? Many have tried. Our history books are littered with both failed attempts and their distorted remains. All I can say for certain is that the way the majority of countries are structured… isn’t it. This is fundamentally why achieving a fix is nearly impossible at scale: tribalism. Even if we are wrong it’s our wrong and we don’t want to lose it. This is rooted in fear of change which from a survival aspect makes sense… but becomes detrimental at scale.

This may not be a popular response but when did the nazi regime stop? When did China stop with it’s cleansing? America and manifest destiny? I could go on… Humanity needs to realize that we are pretty shitty in general and can’t be trusted when it comes to hatred, entitlement, and tribalism.

The solution is a neutral third party with sufficient power to stop any country’s bullshit through economic and military (actual) peacekeeping… which doesn’t exist nor will it ever.

So the short answer is they will stop when the cleansing is complete.

After the deed is done we as ‘civilized’ nations will lament the tragedy and promise change… until the media cycle washes all those sins down the drain and it will be forgotten until next time.

So there is a calculation for what time the sun is at a particular angle in the sky which will be relative to your area and factors in the time of year etc. You could use that as it will give you a very specific to your area mathematical answer to when you should close your shades. This is a good start. If you mix that with a light sensor and set minimums that will get you the rest of the way there (no sense run blocking lightning a cloudy day.) You can just use a light sensor but it will be more erratic if you don’t correct for weather and seasonal light levels.

The rest is personal to how sensitive to light changes and seasonal settings you apply to it.

As far as the physical control goes - there are several commercial devices available as well as diy solutions involving motors and 3d printing on YouTube.

Flipped. Houses are in essence bottled / shelved inflation. Purchasing a house aligns you with inflation until you attempt to sell (at which point you realize that shelved inflation and generally pass it on to the buyer.)

Home owners are the least likely to want to get burned by pullbacks in this transaction so they will typically resist negative price movement when listing. The same goes for valuations being inflated as well as a host of other dubious practices. So basically we are artificially holding a price on part of the sell side market while builders are trying to sell homes and the prices are falling to entice new buyers (… which still aren’t buying.)

When the price falls too much: homeowners flip and become ‘motivated’ (see big short scene with the realtor.) This becomes precipitous and the bottom falls out on the market.

It really is a shame a lot of that got deleted as we all were referencing off it. The reason given didn’t fit as the discussions, while heated, were mostly civil.

I forget my exact choice of words (which is frustrating) but in essence I said that a pause doesn’t exist. It is a chemical process being blocked. It doesn’t run it back for the missed time after the blockers go away- it simply runs its remaining time out. I recall acknowledging that while yes blockers have been in use for some time the dosage and effect desired were different: think reducing a flow rather than outright turning it off. The result and long term effects are different and there are far fewer studies on the latter. I made an off the cuff comment about not wanting to use children as test subjects I believe.

All of that more or less to explain my position that outright blocking so early can have lasting effects that may threaten the health of the person later in life. This is why I think the use of pause and the downplaying of potential side effects is in poor taste or disingenuous.

let’s not be pedantic to try to weasel out a point. Let me clarify: people [in this thread] have stated it is a method to prevent the results of puberty… which unless I am mistaken can start quite early (12 and earlier.) My statements echoed how ridiculous that is… so thank you for the concern but my facts were straight.

Hahah I couldn’t help it the opportunity was too good. I really wanted a Donald comparison too 😉

It’s a distasteful and disingenuous tone but I’ll break it down:

Elsewhere in this thread, you assert that hormones produced during puberty are essential to the cognitive development of these children you seem to care so much about.

You are combining two statements I made and inferring something incorrectly from it.

First in reference to the hormones and puberty: it’s known that these hormones don’t exclusively develop our sexual attributes. They do, certainly, but that’s not all they do. Many of the drawbacks of taking inhibitors are result of inhibiting this (other) development in our bodies. I believe I referenced the mayo clinics site as an example.

Cognitive development is important. Absolutely. I firmly believe that prior to the age of consent we shouldn’t be in a hurry to medicate away this “problem.” The adolescent should be supported and given access to counseling so they, given sufficient time and information, can make an informed decision.

But now we should make those same children wait nearly a decade – delaying this vital development – until they’re legally adults?

That is roughly what I’m implying- but your math is off unless we are starting this discussion around the age of 6 to 8. Let’s dial down the dramatics here.

I’m omitting your catch 22 as it is circular nonsense.

Out of curiosity, what medical treatments do you consider allowable for minors? … [truncated] …

This is more or less all the same. In short most of the things you have listed can be tested for and quantified. And yes while we can use drugs for treatment - very frequently we employ counseling and other less drastic methods before resorting to drugs. A state of being or sense of self is difficult to test for or quantity. There has been some headway on it but it’s in it’s infancy… so yes my stance on exercising a more methodical and cautious approach remains a reasonable decision.

16+ is the age of consent depending on where you live. My stance is focused on prior to that age. I have indicated as much in other responses. People are saying it should be started to counteract puberty which for many starts as early as 12. Within that scope in mind… I imagine my stance is a bit more logical.

There was a time when it was almost trendy to have a child who was gay. It was a disgusting period and it highlighted how people would project their ideals and ideas onto their kids. I had a friend I cared for deeply struggle with some fallout related to that. There is a reason I stress informed consent opposed to what I’d describe as guided consent: It’s their decision and they should make it when they have been given sufficient time and counseling to be certain. This isn’t a binary discussion - there’s a lot of nuance.

As a direct answer to your statement (your question warranted a separate thread):

I agree on case by case. Some will be clear cut but kids are malleable and uncertain. They have very little worldly experience to draw on and need to be protected… universally. My reaction to posts and positions such as this one is visceral. Too many people will bandwagon the ideal and ‘virtue’ of it and in doing so propose overly simplified ideas that aren’t a real (or complete) solution. It’s social media - I expect the response I got to a degree but it is pleasant when it yields a good discussion. It may benefit someone later to be able to observe those views and see that it is possible to discuss differences in opinions without a firefight.