Technology Connections just dropped the most thorough argument for renewables.

https://youtu.be/KtQ9nt2ZeGM

Watch till the end.

This argument persists because it is easier to believe that everything is rigged than to engage with the complexity of political institutions. It provides an emotionally satisfying shortcut, but it collapses under even a minimal amount of empirical scrutiny.

People can give solid advice even when they are struggling or even when they failed in the same area. A smoker can tell you smoking is bad. Someone whose marriage ended can still recognize unhealthy patterns. Someone who made financial mistakes can warn you about the traps they fell into. Two things can be true at the same time.

A useful skill is learning to tell when advice is grounded in reflection versus when it is shaped by unprocessed regret. People often speak from a mix of past experience and current emotion. Some insights are helpful, some are fear driven, and it takes a little judgment to sort out which is which.

So instead of accepting or rejecting advice automatically, it helps to look at where it is coming from. Are they sharing something they have actually thought through, or are they reacting to their own past? The value of the advice depends less on whether their life went well and more on how honestly they have understood it.

I’ve yet to encounter a problem with mint I haven’t been able to solve with some googling and chatgpt. I love it.

GLP-1 drugs were originally developed for diabetes. A side effect was weight loss.

Most drugs with fun side effects get marketed for the fun side effect.

“Everyone should read more.”

I grab everything on Epic and use playnite to browse my collection.

I recently started playing Gravity Circuit and it is great!

I wish they would put an offer in for my state…

In my line of work, anything more than 24 hours feels like a vacation.

I took that as being part of the point.

I want to focus on the structure of the proposal rather than on defending Israeli state policy, which I oppose in many respects.

As written, the proposal does not clearly define Zionism so much as treat a particular interpretation of it as self-evident, namely that Zionism is inherently a form of settler colonialism. That is a position many people hold, but it is also a contested one, and the policy depends on that premise without unpacking it.

If the core concern is behavior such as genocide denial, dehumanization of Palestinians, or the repetition of propaganda talking points, those are concrete harms and seem like appropriate moderation targets on their own. Framing the rule around an ideological label instead of specific conduct risks conflating belief, state policy, and online behavior, which are not always the same thing even when they overlap.

I also share some of the concern about how “pro-Zionist” would be determined in practice. When enforcement depends on interpreting intent or identity rather than observable actions, it increases the risk of inconsistency and misclassification, even with good faith moderation.

I am not arguing against taking a clear moral stance in support of Palestinians. I am suggesting that the policy would be stronger, clearer, and easier to defend if it focused explicitly on the behaviors and arguments that cause harm, rather than relying on a broad and disputed definition of Zionism to do that work.

Imagine being so ideologically primed that a comment about a browser requires inventing a leftist to argue with.

As someone who recently made the switch with zero Linux experience, I completely agree.

The same thing happened to me a few years ago!

He’s 5 now and my best friend.

I make jams from fruits that are in season. They are dirt cheap and making jam in bulk is way easier. They make for great Christmas gifts.

That ideological diversity did not just fade on its own. Over the past decade it has been actively pruned away. Spaces like r/conservative now routinely permaban anyone who steps outside an approved line, including the kind of libertarian arguments that used to be common. What remains is a tightly controlled echo chamber that presents itself as grassroots discussion while functioning more like propaganda. Given that shift, it is hard to take it seriously as a place for real conservative debate.

I’m one of the few who has had it at the top for as long as I can remember. It absolutely infuriated me to find out the feature had been removed.

Calling this comic “bait” avoids engaging with what it is actually describing. Dismissing it as provocation reframes women’s experiences as manipulation instead of responding to the pattern being shown, and that reaction itself reinforces the point.

The first panel matters. A lot of men say they want honesty, but what they often want is honesty that does not hurt. They like the idea of honesty, but do not understand how to use it to reflect, grow, or regulate themselves. When straightforward rejection is met with insults, anger, persistence, or contempt, people learn that honesty is unsafe. That is not gamesmanship. It is conditioning.

Honesty only works in environments where it is not punished. In my marriage, honesty works because my wife knows it will not be used against her. That took years of consistent behavior to build. Outside of relationships with that level of trust, honesty can carry real social and emotional risk.

Transparency is not cruelty, but it only functions as kindness when the person receiving it is capable of kindness. If you respond to honesty with hostility, you are not being harmed by truth. You are demonstrating that you cannot tolerate it.

People who claim to value honesty but lash out when they hear it are not victims of dishonesty. They are teaching others to protect themselves. If you punish honesty, you should not be surprised when people stop offering it.

I am beyond tired of seeing “raises ethical concerns” every time something blatantly corrupt happens. I understand Reuters and AP want to sound neutral, but at this point that phrasing just feels like polite fiction. When the president’s son-in-law is financing a $108 billion media takeover that the president himself may influence through antitrust review, that is not a vague “ethical concern.” That is a direct, structural conflict of interest in plain sight. The soft language does not make it responsible journalism anymore. It makes it feel like reality is being systematically understated.