Kraken

The source you linked even mentions at the end that this doesn't really mean anything in terms of whether or not conservatives will magically become a majority because they had more kids. Also no, wasn't really going for it being an act of environmental justice. It might be a reason (or one of many contributing reasons) for some people but I don't know whether or not it's a significant amount. I don't think it's a significant factor to most people though. I blame the economy more than whether children born right now will live through the future, rather than thinking that by not having kids I'm magically reducing emissions. Because it's heavy industry/powerplants that tend to do the most polluting. Not having a kid seems really minor in comparison to that.

To be honest I find this sort of disingenuous. I'm not sure whether you're insinuating it's liberals only that are not having children, or assuming that all millennials are liberal. Or it's by country fertility rates. Anyways your source literally talks about why Africa tends to have higher fertility rates and what that means- It doesn't really mean anything for us. Africa is growing financially and technologically but unless they become a source of something we (Americans) direly become dependent on (that we aren't already dependent on China or Saudi Arabia for) I don't see why it would be an issue. Overpopulation as most people interpret it is a myth anyways. Populations always stabilize naturally (and in some extreme cases such as China, artificially) due to resource constraints (at least usually in sustainable constraints.) As has been pointed out before, India and China are in a lot of the cases the leading cause for climate change and we can't really do anything about it (besides not burning our own forests and shit like that.) So really in any case we're pretty screwed unless there's a major sharing of knowledge of/materials for clean energy and/or Nuclear Energy to developing countries and/or China and India. But that probably won't happen because we're A. probably incapable of such massive scale industrial production because of course we'd want to sell it to them, B. (rightfully) scared shitless of nuclear weapons proliferation. (It doesn't really matter in the case of India and China though, they already have nukes.)

I hated every second of reading this thread but I think I should answer the question because I don't think anyone pointed it out really well: It's childless people (I'm not going to get into the arguments of it being atheism or not) because they probably don't want to raise children in a world that is outright detrimental to human health with very grim prospects. Or alternatively, it could be because the American economy sucks (because we're pretty much talking about America only here) and no one wants to go into debt trying to raise a child. Or they straight up can't afford to. Also it turns out that the family income affects the quality of learning of children. What a surprise. source1 source2 source3 source4 source5 source6 source7 source8 source9

I'd rather not. Also I literally didn't touch the forums for like, 5 months.

image1 image2 this ain't a good look Before this I didn't even know those existed. Like, these are really niche things we're talking about here. Transracialism (in the original context of adopting was okay, not the weird new version we're talking about) is really just another word for Cultural Appropriation, which is really fucked up and harmful. What was your point about transgender people being "rare"? Just because they're "rare" doesn't mean they're less entitled to basic human rights. Also which one is the NBJC? I looked back through the links and it didn't directly link to the NBJC. (If it inadvertantly did through the source that's my fault then but from what I see it's not a bad organization?) "Failures in replication are not all bad and, in fact, some non-replication should be expected in science. Original studies are conducted when an answer to a question is uncertain. That is to say, scientists are venturing into new territory. In such cases we should expect some answers to be uncovered that will not pan out in the long run. Furthermore, we hope that scientists take on challenging new topics that come with some amount of risk. After all, if scientists were only to publish safe results that were easy to replicate, we might have very boring studies that do not advance our knowledge very quickly. But, with such risks, some non-replication of results is to be expected." I find it hilarious that that comes from your source. Anyways Psychology is very real. I do think that Freud was fucked up and wrong, but beyond Freud I think it's a very interesting and (relatively) new field of science. Of course, it does have its issues, but I don't think they're quite as big as you're making it out to be, or at the very least, you're making a big issue of the wrong areas, like instead confirmation bias or the misuse of statistics, or the fact it's done in WEIRD (western, educated, industrialized, rich and democratic) societies 60-90% of the time. I'm pretty sure these controversies won't end Psychology though. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2019–2021_Persian_Gulf_crisis I can blame him for this though. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gang#Motives I can blame that one on something concrete like socioeconomics, rather than some vague enemy like race or because of political affiliation. Though you can say the political polarization is causing people to turn to gang-like mentality, all of it still ends up far-right. I find the whole discourse of discussing trans people in bathrooms ridiculous for multiple reasons. Refer to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bathroom_bill Loosely related: https://www.internationalstudentinsurance.com/explained/sexual-assault-awareness/common-myths-about-sexual-assault/ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trans_bashing#Harassment_of_transgender_people_in_bathrooms As for trans athletes, it's an issue that's really nuanced and it doesn't feel so clear cut as y'know, going to the same bathroom or basic human rights. (Though you can argue that being able to be an athlete is some form of basic human rights.) Still, you know there's an alternative to DNA swabs right? It's called asking. (What they were born as, also known as assigned at birth.)

To be honest I find it unlikely that it will happen. Amazon has a history of being aggressively Anti-Union. That and they're so big they can constantly just hire other people.

https://blog.malwarebytes.com/101/2018/11/dna-testing-kit-companies-really-data/ https://www.cnbc.com/2018/06/16/5-biggest-risks-of-sharing-dna-with-consumer-genetic-testing-companies.html https://www.deseret.com/2018/8/21/20651592/the-company-that-analyzed-your-dna-just-sold-the-results-to-someone-else-really-what-are-the-risks https://www.nbcnews.com/health/health-news/what-you-re-giving-away-those-home-dna-tests-n824776 https://gizmodo.com/should-you-sell-your-dna-on-the-internet-1822117457 https://internethealthreport.org/2019/23-reasons-not-to-reveal-your-dna/ and more specifically for trans people: https://time.com/5431836/dna-transgender-history/ https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/10/21/18005594/trump-administration-transgender-sex-dna-test https://rewirenewsgroup.com/article/2018/10/26/why-genetic-testing-for-gender-is-dangerous-pseudoscience/ https://impakter.com/forced-and-coerced-sterilization-an-unnecessary-intervention-in-transgender-and-intersex-individuals/ I'd think it's more on the point that you have a right to keep your DNA private (and also not get fucking sterlized. oh did I mention FUCKING EUGENICS?)

Funnily enough "Emigrants with capital of £1,000, (about $5,000 in 1930s currency value) could move to Palestine in spite of severe British restrictions on Jewish immigration under an immigrant investor program." Also funnily enough "Hitler's own support of the Haavara Agreement was unclear and varied throughout the 1930s. Initially, Hitler seemed indifferent to the economic details of the plan, but he supported it in the period from September 1937 to 1939. After the German invasion of Poland in September 1939 the program was ended." Wanna know what happened in 1936-1939? The 1936-1939 Arab revolt in Palestine. Suspiciously coincidental perhaps. Also this was really really an unpopular program even among Jewish people. But they feared that if they didn't leave when they could and without causing some "injustice" (in the eyes of the Nazi party) that it would get worse for them. I personally also hate some of Israel's policies, but I don't think it requires disbanding Israel or for some reason hating Jewish people. For example the situation of the Palestinians is horrible. They should be given a voice in Israeli politics, (and stop being bombed) but that likely won't happen because Israel's an ethnostate. So I'm not "Anti-Zionist" because honestly they have enough problems with themselves to worry about Palestinians. Yet they do anyways. And I'm pretty sure that whenever the president "bends over backwards for Israel" it's not over ethnic lines or for some "Jewish Elite". It's for military reasons. Even if those reasons are strained currently. The U.S. obviously wants to keep getting money from military exportation. If you read the thread at all you would know I've criticized the U.S. police and government's racist actions multiple times. I wasn't talking about races. I was talking specifically about trans people. But since you want to make it about race, it is worse for trans African-Americans. Also seriously did you say "Black-on-white crime"? It's mostly intraracial- that means within the same race. Also fuck off with that "bogus unbiological plight" bullshit. Anyways Trump Derangement Syndrome means Jack shit when we're talking about the effects he/the Republican party had politically. I didn't bring him up because I'm somehow in your eyes viewed as obsessed with him. Talking about the effects of a President doesn't mean we're deranged about him. Political polarization meant someone like Trump was a result of it- inevitable. He's merely a figurehead of a party that mostly encompasses everything he is. But like I said before, I hate both parties as they currently are. And it's because of political polarization. EDIT: also I forgot to mention but there's an awful lot of far-right terrorism

Yikes okay so I guess it's time for me to come back. First things first: BTG it's really not hard to refer to people as their "preferred pronouns" (that shouldn't even be a charged or political pair of words but apparently now it is.) Purposefully referring to people by the wrong pronouns is just being petty, obtuse, or on the extreme end, an asshole. Not sure where exactly you lean on that spectrum so take that as you will. Now for the next order of business: diving headfirst into a political debate online citing statistics/sources. (I understand if there's some skepticism from reading something from Wikipedia but it's usually good enough to have an introductory understanding. also you can just check the sources. or look up alternate views/sources that aren't from neo-nazis/conservatives who hate anyone who isn't white/cis/male.) Anyways, the reason for the high rate of (known) transgender suicide attempts can be explained (as in the link just provided, which also has multiple sources credited if you want to go even further) with a few reasons: Note that I kept out the "Access to lethal means (e.g. firearms, prescription drugs)" because I personally think that this is an issue plaguing all of America rather than just trans people, even if it *is* a factor. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transphobia#Manifestations Transphobia is very much a real thing. You know that trans people get murdered just for being trans, right? Shit that happens to trans people constantly, like being denied the ability to go to the bathroom, and/or being fired from their job just for being trans, shouldn't be happening to anyone in the first place regardless of them being trans, and yet it is just fine when it's trans people? And we're not talking about what happens in China or Syria or some random 3rd world country. We're talking about Europe. We're talking about the United States. And it's not helping when you demonize trans people in sports. The earlier that trans people are allowed to transition means that there are less differences between someone born as that sex, and someone who transitioned to that. And yet there's all this scare about giving hormones to teens because they might be wrong. So counsel them. Give them therapy and room to breath, to understand their position before transitioning, and if need be, give them hormone blockers before they are given a body that is very hard to reverse. The whole point of being young is to learn about things and yet someone's here talking as "lol funny trans people commit suicide" when it's a symptom of a very serious issue, it being that transgender people are a minority that some people hate. There's no middle ground between "I think trans people should have basic human rights" and "I think trans people shouldn't exist." Because trans people have always existed. You just didn't hear about them as much before. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transgender_history also preemptively: My signature does not mean I think you're allowed to be an asshole or that you somehow think you're one of the people that care. Because obviously you don't if you think hating someone for their ethnicity/religion/sexuality/gender is justified. Politically yes, I can think you're stupid. Trump Republicans have given up any idea of working with the Democrats so I think it can go both ways now. (regardless of how much I hate both parties as they are right now)

I don't call it questioning your motives, more like taking the piss on the American Government regarding their response (or lack thereof) to COVID-19.

You're implying the American Government is actually being intelligent about a virus.

Do you want assistance with that or not? Because you haven't exactly given us the scenarios in which your ships are having control issues. We can't read your mind to see what the issue is. Maybe take a picture of the ship so we can see what you're trying to explain? Also using thrust vectoring 100% of the time in space is generally a bad idea since it wastes fuel and can mess up the orbit.

So can you give us a run-through of the issues? Like these are some pretty specific problems we're looking at. If we're talking about flight, the reason that it might not be all that maneuverable can come down to a few things: Speed, which affects the amount of air moved by control surfaces Presence of control surfaces, or lack thereof Positioning of control surfaces behind the center of mass relative to the front of the plane (Putting CoL in front of the CoM tends to make it too unstable.) Thrust Vectoring engines, or non-thrust vectoring. (engine nozzle gimbals/turns/moves and makes thrust go to an angle) If something is too maneuverable (but still stable), press Caps lock once and it should go into fine control mode, which makes the WASDQE controls have significantly lower maximum input. As for maneuvering in space, use RCS (larger ships especially, or for docking) or reaction wheels (can get heavy). Although all of those are kinda void if you don't put a probe or command module on with crew. Or fuel. Or electricity for most of it. And if it's a probe with no crew, you probably need an antennae (or more importantly electricity), at least if you have the setting for requiring communications to control on.

Like how Spintires is a tech demo, this is too. But really this is just a by-product of some weird copyright status and disagreements in the game studio that made Spintires. That's what I remember it being anyways, might be wrong. Interesting if you like driving trucks with logs in mud. (Hence the name.) Really more like a graphically updated Spintires, along with some minor gameplay tweaks. I don't exactly know how to feel about it considering it barely stayed relevant long enough before they announced a sequel to it. I give it a Love/Hate relationship.