I mean, the thing with the environmental impacts of it is that these people already existed, so any increase in climate impact from them is driven not by actual population growth in a global sense, but in people here having a higher quality of life. We need to decouple that from carbon emissions of course, but in the meantime, I dont know that "Some people who were incredibly poor are now a bit less poor" is really the worst reason for an increase in climate impact. 100000 a month is a bit over million people a year, which sounds like a lot, but when the country has over 300 million people, that is in the ballpark of a third of a percent. That doesnt seem like very much to me. It seems silly to say the country is "bursting at the seams" or "we're full" as I sometimes hear people say in the same vein- when we have a lower average population density than the world as a whole. Countries like India and China manage well over 4 times that in a similar amount of space, and if we want to stay globally relevant in the long run in a world where there are countries with over a billion people that are rapidly developing economically, it seems to me that we would benefit from roughly similar numbers. If we can achieve this by allowing the impoverished from elsewhere to come, add the better aspects of their culture to ours like migrant groups have done before, and improve their quality of life while doing so (granted, actually treating immigrants to the standards we treat eachother is something we need to work on), that strikes me as win-win. Yes, population growth poses a strain on things like housing and public services, but we do have enough raw land, and the infrastructure is something that we can build, indeed, building it is itself something that can drive economic growth and job creation.

I mean, I can see it being a logistical problem for the areas directly on the border if people that come in stay there instead of spreading across the country to avoid overtaxing local resources, but on the whole, one would think lots of people coming in would be a good thing. Immigration is what is keeping the country slowly growing instead of being in population decline the way many other countries are these days, and in general, more people does translate to more economic and military power as long as you can maintain the same per-capita economic conditions once they arrive. If anything, we should be trying to attract immigrants in my view

Iirc he thinks Harris will win, but he also thought replacing Biden was a bad idea for the dems before it happened, which given how badly he was polling, makes me somewhat skeptical.

I mean, he might have said it, the man seems mentally scrambled enough that even if he's in Putin's pocket I could see him trying to make threats to him to boost his ego. Now him saying it in a way that would make it seem serious, or actually meaning it, is another matter.

The thing about SpaceX and NASA is that their purposes aren't really the same. NASA does space exploration and science type work to a large extent, which requires them getting their equipment up into space, but since rocket launches themselves are no longer the frontier of space technology, they don't really want to be in charge of launching everything up the that people want launched (which is a lot these days), they want to focus their efforts on pushing the boundary. It would be like trying to solve the problems with Boeing by making the FAA build all the country's planes instead. Not to say that nationalization is necessarily bad, but more that if it were done, it would make more sense to keep SpaceX it's own entity as a state run corporation than to fold it's commercial rocket launching into NASA.

Alternatively, something else I could imagine threatening Musk with, if the government had the stomach for it, would be to seize SpaceX and then make it employee-owned, which avoids changing it's competitiveness in the launch industry (it has become so dominant because, for the moment, it has actually done a pretty good job at reducing launch costs and improving rocket technology, and doing anything too disruptive with it while it remains in that position might disrupt that), but takes away Elon's share of the money and decision making.

Ironically, him actually turning out to be gay and coming out as such might be one of the few things that could stand a chance at getting his core followers to turn on him

yup

My high school one had this bizarre poster of Darth Vader saying "Your teacher took your cell phone? My teacher took my legs."

Can hardly expect revenues to stay the same after it gets out that safety is that insufficient though, surely an actual economist would have a way to take that into account?

It should be a landslide victory after saying such, but everything I've heard regarding polls on the matter is that doing so wouldn't actually gain her much if any support, and possibly might lose her some. There's a very vocal part (especially on lemmy) of the left that would support her more, but the unfortunate matter with Isreal is that a very large portion of the country is genuinely favorable towards that country even when they're actively destroying a population, dislikes Palestinians enough to believe Isreali propaganda about them being just terrorists, or just doesn't care about what goes on in the rest of the world and would resent the issue being focused upon over domestic matters.

Did the judge actually determine it, or did the judge just relay information given to them by someone else?

I sometimes wonder, if a kid in this position grows up and gets out of the crazy conspiracy theories, what process would they even have to go to to get identification documents and such, given they'd have basically none of the expected ones used to prove identity

I mean, it's a kitchen appliance that makes bread? Throw the ingredients in and turn it on, and you have bread, in like, 4 hours. I have a slightly nice one, because I found someone selling it used for 20 bucks when that model new is like 200, but I think the more basic ones can get a bit less than $100, so while I wouldn't call them cheap, they're not exactly unaffordable luxury for most people lucky enough to live in a developed country. They're just not really worth it unless you plan on using it regularly (and eating a lot of bread, because homemade bread lacks the preservatives of store bought food I've found I get maybe 5 days with a loaf from it before there's a risk of the bread going moldy)

I'm not sure that something like a public orgy would be a good idea, not because of "morals" (I tend to think modern society is far too repressed about sexual stuff), but because of the health implications that would come of encouraging sexual contact between large groups of strangers. That sounds like a recipe for STI spread unless you were very strict and thorough with testing, vetting participants, and enforcing protective measures, which inevitably not every instance would be.

I sometimes think about automats, and what a modernized version, designed to both be healthy enough to eat as one's primary meal source without ill effect and efficient enough to compete in price with home cooking, might be like. I suspect it would probably involve a lot of soup and chili and the like, just because that stuff is relatively simple to produce in large quantities, and uses cheap yet generally healthy ingredients

anecdotally, Ive gotten this with store bought basic sliced bread. I used to love it and snack on just bread as a kid, but Ive been making my bread with a bread machine for a few years, and now the store bread just tastes and feels like weak, dry, slightly sweetened insulation foam.

Very slightly more ridiculous, imo, are the people that fly it in West Virginia. Whenever they come up, I think, like, do y'all even know why your state even exists?

Arguably these are different amounts of bad even before considering this: We generally consider existing preferable to non-existence to some extent when suffering isnt taken into account, consider that if you murder someone quickly and painlessly in their sleep without waking them, they dont really themselves suffer from it, but people will still find you to be a murderer, and would object to the idea that you might do it to them. In the top example, killing the people actually kills them, but in the lower example, it arguably doesnt, because the experiences of the people involved never actually cease, therefore, the lower path seems to me to be preferable because you supposedly get equivalent amounts of "suffering", but different amounts of time that people spend in non-existence.

Evolution, settlers of Catan, Machi Koro (okay, that ones more a card game, but it plays like it has a board almost) are top ones. Next two probably vary a bit on the situation, if I'm having to play with children, due to visiting family that has them, King of Tokyo is good. If they're aren't any children and there's a lot of time, I enjoy risk sometimes too.

I'm not a huge board game player though, so I've played, maybe 2 or 3 dozen different ones over time?

Im not sure if not having windows would actually do that or not, I mean, yes, they present an issue for insulation and let heat in during the summer, but those issues can be mitigated with good design on the part of the window glass itself, the placement of it, or structures around it like awnings, and they also do things like let light in that would otherwise need to be artificial, be opened to allow fresh air in during times when the outside is cooler than the inside, and allow for view of green spaces that helps with mental health and which otherwise would require more indoor space be made available to fit indoor plants to get the same benefit. I feel like having well designed and placed windows probably do more good than harm.