Separately, internal security forces have been killing citizens without any cause nor investigation after the fact, in contravention to all of the supposed "rights" those citizens were once said to have.

These are the things the rule of law is about. It is meant to be a higher power than any individual, no matter their position.

The U.S. does not have the rule of law any longer. It's best to look the truth in the face rather than hide from it.

One of the best parts of the game: Your scowling coach berating you for getting the robot too smashed up and then having to pay for the repairs.

Take salmon for instance. In a lifetime of preparing and then eating several portions of salmon per week, I've noticed that the farmed salmon are pretty much always:

-Very pale pink color, as though the animal was unhealthy (sometimes stores even add red food dye to cover this up)

-Weak and mushy flesh, even when fresh; healthy salmon flesh is muscled and springy, it isn't naturally slimy and it holds its shape

-Weak flavor that seems to be missing a lot of the more robust flavor notes entirely

-Thinner or nearly-nonexistent layer of fat between the flesh and the scales (contributes to less flavor overall and removes a lot of the umami); the same problem also applies to the thin bands of fat between the rows of muscle in the filet itself

-Skin/scales slightly disintegrate or fleck away at a touch instead of remaining intact

I don't even bother buying it even if it's significantly cheaper.

I can't imagine that the nutrient content is the same as the wild-caught fish. And based on the sickly look and taste of the meat, it's also very hard to believe that the farmed fish live a life that they find to be pleasant, to the extent such a thing is possible.

Why?

It's already doing a lot of the loadbearing work in those mid-level roles too now, it's just a bit awkward for management to admit it. One common current mode of work is people using AI to accomplish their work tasks very quickly, and then loafing a bit more with the extra time. So leaders refrain from hiring, pocket the savings, and keep a tight lid on compensation for those who remain.

At some point they'll probably try to squeeze the workforce for some additional productivity, and cut those who don't deliver it. Note that the "ease" of using AI for work tasks will be a rationale for why additional compensation is not warranted for those who remain.

By and large, Silicon Valley and its kingmakers are fully in support of this, many vocally so.

It won't be me or you. Whoever it is, they will not share any of the economic upsides of AI with the public unless they are legally forced -- zero, zip, zilch, nada. Even then, they will keep the lion's share for themselves, and they will use their surplus to shape society to their advantage.

So yes, many millions of us have a big problem to worry about, especially considering how much struggling there already is now.

Who are you going to believe: the warmth felt by your own skin, or the people telling you that nothing is wrong, and that global heating isn't something to be concerned about? Psychologically it's more comfortable to choose the latter because it implies things can stay the same without trouble. But it's only viable to do so if you can suppress the cognitive dissonance.

The planet is burning.

We know which companies are responsible for polluting. They've been doing it for years, knowing the damages in greater and greater detail all along the way.

Why aren't we forcing the polluters to pay for the cleanup as well as the likely-tremendous costs of damage to people's health and the ecosystem? And why aren't these chemicals banned? At what point does the government do anything about widespread problems like this? We don't get much of anything in the way of protection from bad domestic actors (in this case, polluters) for our tax dollars.

It's getting quite tiring to live in a country where the rules seem to be "anarchy for thee, and profits for me".

mutation profile of this particular variant: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/...

summary of the phenomenon in layman's terms: when binding at 100% efficiency, antibodies bind to portions of the spike protein like a key fits into a lock, so it's easy to "unlock" the lock, thereby neutralizing the viral particle. when there are mutations which affect the shapes of the different portions of the spike protein, it's like the pins in the lock shifting so that the key you used before might not work without quite a bit of jiggling, assuming you can get it to unlock the lock at all. the more mutations that increase the amount of jiggling it takes, the more the pins in the lock become intractable with the key you have.

this set of analogies is imperfect in a few ways, but hopefully it helps you to understand the gist of the problem.

the ELI5 is that it's expanding really fast, and it is probably at least somewhat resistant to our immune system's first line of defenses that are formed from vaccination or a prior infection. the details on all of those points are very much in flux still, so be aware that the story could change as we learn more.

in more detail:

the biggest piece of worrying evidence is that it's growing as a proportion of cases in south africa at such an intensely fast rate that it's outcompeting the delta variant as though it isn't even there, which means it's far more transmissible than any other variant.

as far as i know, there isn't any information on whether it has higher lethality compared to delta, but my hunch is that it does.

the reason why i think it will end up having increased lethality is that it appears to have a complex of mutations that are associated with resistance to antibodies, likely including those generated by vaccination. that will make it take longer for the immune system to form an effective response to infection, allowing the virus to replicate rampantly and cause organ damage for longer.

keep in mind every other variant has also exhibited this property at least to a small amount, and in most cases, regardless of vaccination, our bodies are still able to clear the infection.

the issue is that this time around, the variant doesn't have just one or two tropisms associated with lower antibody binding efficiency, but perhaps a couple dozen. so, it'll likely be more effective at reinfecting people who have already had covid, too. and even though the variant may be "vaccine resistant", i'd bet that vaccinated people will still fare better than unvaccinated people. unfortunately, our antibody therapies probably won't be as helpful at saving people who are hospitalized.

but, our antiviral therapies (including those still in development) shouldn't be any less effective against this variant, which is a very faint silver lining.

in conclusion: buckle up, we're probably in for a rough ride.

yes, this has been my experience. as you said, it's an effective tactic to defuse genuine threats to the narrative as being "unreasonable" or "not serious".

i have a hunch that learning to refrain from criticism of insiders is actually the biggest "lesson" taught at the universities and organizations that are traditional centers of elite power. it's part of the pedigree.

>If you can more easily reach a niche audience, you can build better more targeted products.

in practice, these two concepts are incompatible. everyone has buttons that can be pushed with the help of detailed psychological profiles made by advertisers.

if you push those buttons enough times, it's typically unhealthy for the person and financially beneficial for the pusher all the while.

that's why there is a lot of concern about their potential long-term side effects. in animal models, one of moderna's older vaccines (not for covid) was found to cause severe liver damage... likely as a result of the nanoparticle formulation they were using, rather than the mrna itself, but who knows.

personally, given the data that i've seen so far, i'd be more comfortable with taking the pfizer mrna vaccine than the moderna one. especialy when you add in moderna's reputation for peak sleaziness and non-transparency, it seems especially risky to be one of their guinea pigs in the general population.

a progressive wealth tax would tax the increase of wealth on the margin rather than just "wealth". experience equity gains of $1M? you owe an extra $10k in liquid cash at the end of the year. if your equity doesn't grow, you don't get taxed.

in any event, the floor for these kinds of laws would likely be above the ceiling of most people's lifetime wealth accumulation.