random-human

Having grown up in TX and having gone through the required Texas propaganda (only state flag allowed to fly at same height as US flag etc) history courses in school, I can understand the fantasy of a by-gone era. A few people really take it to heart though.

Texas has a bit of a unique history compared to other states, it was it's own country at one point and they made sure that we learned it, even in US history courses. Part of what makes the idea realistic is that the state could support itself, if it had too. There are major air & sea ports/trade, energy, food, defense, medical, technology, research, etc. While it seceded from the union, it really didnt do much in the civil war - but the most telling is that it still went with being a part of other states instead of becoming a Republic again. The idea of being an independent country is more of having this mental place to escape too when things are not going their (currently republican) way. The 180 the state did from its heighten Independents/secession rhetoric during Obama to going full-on Trumpism kowtowing is dizzying.

> Yeah, I don't think so. This feels like a survey of people who consume too much news and social media and have become increasingly disconnected from the reality on the ground.

This says it all. The talk is there, social media (or any one who will listen) seems to be a popular public journal for people to vent feelings and use it as therapy. I even have friends that txt their anxiety about the political situation and when it reaches peek anxiety, the words civil war get thrown in there. But, it's clearly just a way to release the temporary anxiety they are feeling after having spent too much time consuming click-bait media - most people are too comfortable and self-serving in their lives to engage in long term life and death violence.

People here really did not do well, mentally or physically, when they were told they could not gather at bars or restaurants for months. And they really didnt like the disruptions to the sports seasons. The majority are not the extremist (be its very definition) that would actually be willing to give up football on Sunday to cosplay civil war 2.0.

Also, the logistics are not there - not that I can see anyway. Many people would defend their home and cities, but wont be motivated to march thousands of miles into unfamiliar neighborhoods to get shot at by g'ma and a 8 y/o. I think people, even other Americans, underestimate the actual patriotism of people in this country.

And also the Spanish and French. When discussing 16th-18th century North America, encompassing the slave trade as being started by Europeans is not inaccurate.

The British brought over, sold, and legalized slavery in the 13 colonies (and other North American locations), long before the USA was even a thing. The USA slave problem was started by Europeans.

Exactly, If or once the situation gets to a point that requires scheduled load shedding (eg South Africa) I would suspect a lot of things would change pretty quickly. I can not imagine any 'side' in TX putting up with having no power for 2-3 hours, 2-3 times day - forcing a greater divide between the have's (businesses/homes willing to pay for generators) & the have-nots.

In many states the more accurate debate is at what point does the possibility of a not-yet guaranteed air-breathing human have more rights than the already living human it's still developing in. Or put another way, at what point do we decide that the woman's life belongs to the state?

These new laws make it clear that a pregnant female, who is already a participating member of humanity, has only one purpose. To carry out the pregnancy, even if it is high risk and likely to kill or disable her. If she fails to produce a new living member, she may now go to jail in some states because the quiet-bad-faith part is made into law; that her Life, is not nearly as important to them as possibility of the not-yet guaranteed new young human. There is nothing pro-life about that.

The money would be better spent on getting the students and their families the mental, educational and financial support needed for everyone's well being. It may not stop shooters, cause shooters are gonna shoot - like it or not, they will just move to sporting events or similar. In Texas, Friday High School football games regularly have 5-10k+ people attending regular season games - more on rivals and playoffs. School door locks and cameras aren't going to help them there. And, if they can't get guns legally, they can get them from Mexico smugglers, gangs, etc. It's not terribly difficult

Reminds me of a time in middle school, before all this school shooter nonsense; a friends father was moving his kids to private school and when I asked why, I was told he wanted them in a safer (richer) school. I was confused and replied that our school was safe, "we have full time cops at the school" - his reply was, "exactly, the point is that there shouldn't be". It was profound for me at the time, and thinking about it - it was normal to look out the class window and see cop cars and k-9s and hear stories about drugs and weapons being found. Classrooms were packed and teachers still didn't get much support from the district.

It would break the Matrix

Free but collecting and storing peoples biometric data on your servers (per the FAQ). How do I know it's not a clearview ai clone but with easier data gathering? What is that saying about what the real product is if something is free?

Season 2 & 3 get better - there was a major production shakeup between 1 & 2 and smaller ones for 3. Season 4 goes slows, but I think one of the biggest problems is the way the seasons are told. One large overarching story with minor character building because of it, instead of the episodic storytelling from TOS etc. It took some getting use too and I almost stopped watching the first season as well. Season 2 is good to watch if you watch Strange New Worlds, which does go back to the episodic stories making it more like Star Trek.

Also, Lower Decks is pretty funny - I put it on for background noise and ended up binge watching, something I rarely do.

> But if some deranged individual breaks into my place of work with a gun I personally would much rather they had a .22 than a .308 or 5.56. Overwhelming them with force with 2 or 3 people I feel would be far more feasible even if you take some bullets in the act.

> I thinks it's uncontroversial that an AR-15 in 5.56 is far more deadly than one in .22.

I am not so sure I would agree. Two reasons; splitting the assertion. One is that many of the people calling for AR-15 bans have no idea that there is a difference in bullet sizes, or if they have an idea that there is, they dont understand what it means and default to - AR-15 == bad.

The other is, I can fire off more round from a 22 rifle and 22 magnum faster with better accuracy than I can an AR-15 style rifle in 5.56 or a .45 (own most of the kinds of guns I talk about). If I slow down on the 5.56 or the 45, I have better accuracy. I have also been shooting for multiple decades, mostly against moving (mostly non-living things) and non-moving objects . Which leads into:

> I would say the test case is how dangerous is the weapon - can it be used to kill many people very quickly?

Every time I read about these shooters, it is absolutely baffling me that they hit so few people. The only thing that makes sense is that they miss a lot - and from experience, I would guess it is because their anger makes them recklessly-wantonly firing off shoots from a gun they can not handle - put a 22 in their hands and I would bet my arsenal that they hit and kill more people. I would even put a 20g shotgun at being a better(worse) weapon than an 5.56 and maybe even tied with a 22 in terms of an untrained shooter hitting and killing their target. But not a 10g or 12g. Of course all of this changes depending on the shooters experience - and then the experienced shooters preference, but any gun in their hands will be more deadly.

I can not see a world where someone who just picked up a real gun will be able to hit more of their moving targets with something that kicks higher than a 22. I would rather take my chances of being a moving target they have trouble hitting over getting a 22 breaking apart inside of me. And if I get hit with a larger slug, I have a better chance of it exiting, cleanly killing me or worst case, being lodged inside but at least staying intact and having a chance to be patched up.

> But if you need a semi-auto to hunt deer you are doing something wrong - a bolt action is enough.

Just for fun, I prefer the American classic lever-action 30-30. But growing up in the south where cowboy boots and hats are still an everyday thing, not a fashion statement - so I may be biased. Though you wont find me wearing either, I prefer urban areas most of the year and like to blend into the background.

I guess my point is focusing on guns will lead to nowhere, too many varying cases - but focusing on keeping guns away from violent and unstable people is a good place to find common ground. I am a huge advocate of gun safety and gun licenses (registries are another issue, and I don't like them because they can be abused too much for my taste. A licenses does not mean you have a gun, just that you can operate them safely, and I am all for that.) Too many people know nothing about guns for me to be okay with them broadly bans gun types without specifically.

People talk about Roe v Wade as if women spontaneously get pregnant against their will and are forced to care for the baby.

They have never been forced to care for the baby, but will now be forced to birth the baby - that still doesnt mean they will care for it, even if it is in the same home.

To the other point, women get pregnant from male sperm, yet it is somehow the female who has been burdened with trying to police this - any male partner/husband can now force a pregnancy though subterfuge leaving the female with little no other option then to carry out his will. Women can have sex all day long, every day of the week with multiple people and they will never get pregnant so long as a male does not ejaculate his sperm inside of her. Yet males are not held accountable for irresponsible ejaculations - maybe they will be monetarily accountable 10+ months later

The burden of un/wanted pregnancy falls onto the female, males have a choice to provide comfort and support (emotional, monetary) if they chose, males can still choose to be absent deadbeat parents too - they are not forced to pay, they can chose not to and depending on their lawyer situation can do so and keep their money, or not do so and have to take steps to hide their money.

Also, contraceptives fail and males don't have to care because the full physical health burden falls on the female. Like this whole topic, wanting a yes or no on something like this or if males should have to support a child just doesnt do it justice, there are too many ways in which that happens - but if a female has the choice to easily get an abortion without all of the burden, then if a male does not want a child and a female does, he should be free from it - but before that can happen - the female must be able to have the choice to carry it or terminate it without burden.

I'm having a hard time imagining why you'd be against a greenhouse gas tax but would support a fossil fuel tax.

Where did I say that?

I was pointing out that choice of words matter. This isnt even about the tax, the original point was about if what people say in polls is real - you argued no and presented very shaky evidence - I was pointing out the flaw in it so you could refine your position or rethink it - what you choose is up to you - but thinking all 69% of the people who would want to tax “fossil fuels” and are also able to make that connection to “greenhouse gases” or not just really dislike fossils fuels for other reasons, I think may be too generous. Then add the people who dont think it goes far enough, plus the midterms and you have a not great argument.

Either way, I havent stated any actual opinion on the tax matter nor have I thought about in the discussion in any way other than to point out what was missing from your example about polling opinion - the words matter, and also voter turn out

The wikipedia article you linked...

It is YOUR wiki link, but with '#Opposition' at the end to move directly to that section of the article...

Edit to add:

This statement is highly misleading.

Kinda like the post before that, you said:

>> 69% of people polled in washington state supported taxing fossil fuel companies.

and

>> but it seems doubtful that 26% of people were for "taxing fossil fuel companies" but were against "pollution fees on sources of greenhouse gas pollutants ".

The whole reason I read through that wiki You linked, was because this did not seem like the same thing, and a lot of people with only a quick reading (such as myself) who this issue is not their main focus is only going to see as loosely related, if that - If Im the 69% that wants to tax fossil fuels, and the ballet says taxes on "greenhouse gas" - Im not going to care or be very happy with the measure, because I agreed I want to tax "fossil fuels"

As for:

> Except that the 2018 ballot measure wasn't the first time Washington tried instituting a carbon tax. They tried 2 years before (not a mid-term year) and that failed even harder, 41% to 59%.

I was responding to your post and that wasn't included - and it could just mean that as the years progress, people are getting more concerned..who knows

> Can that hunting rifle be an AR-15? No. Military assault rifles are not needed for hunting. You can use a bolt action rifle, or even a low powered semi-auto, .22.

I very much agree with with the paragraph before this one. However. This one is why many people just stop listening. The one's you are trying to persuade are gun owners, and this reads as though you did a quick google search for hunting guns and maybe shot a gun once at a range. (not saying thats how it is)

I'll try to unpack this. The statement is conflating looks, cartridge action/mechanism (bolt-action), semi-auto describes the bullet firing mechanism (the gun only fires one round per trigger pull - fully auto will continue to fire as long as the trigger is depressed), and caliber (.22) which is different from cartridge (ex .22LR)

Military assault rifles != AR-15 (I believe many people are confusing what a gun looks like and what it actually does)

The U.S. Army defines assault rifles as "short, compact, selective-fire weapons that fire a cartridge intermediate in power between submachine gun and rifle cartridges." [1]

Bolt-action describes a large range of guns. To be honest, I have always wanted a military sniper rifle, just don't have a use for it, except to maybe look pretty on the wall and target practice. Something like [2]

The .22. I love this gun. It is one of the best guns to learn on. It was the gun I learn to load, shoot, dismantle and clean when I was 4 y/o. It's extremely user friendly. I really hope you don't think a .22 should be used for hunting anything other than rabbits or the like. Anyone that shoots a .22 knows it wont leave big holes, but that you can still kill larger things - if you want to be cruel. The .22 is notorious for bouncing and ricocheting, including off bone and tearing up and shattering the insides. .22s are also easier to fire than larger calibers with a heavier recoil that greatly diminishes accuracy. An untrained shooter with be able to handle a .22 far more accurately, with a greater rate of fire, than the types of "AR-15" guns you are thinking of.

People are scared of large bullet-holes and think AR-15s look like it will leave large holes, so let's ban them. I think many people that actually shoot guns would pick being shot with a gun that quickly blows a large hole through them and it ends there - than by a .22 that will most likely not exit. Instead, it will ricochet shattering bones with the shards ripping through other organs as they slowly, painfully bleed to death from the inside, leaving surgeons helpless to fix that many problems in time.

For completeness, by saying you are okay with a low powered semi-auto .22 (such as a .22 Long Rifle), that is approving of:

American-80 submachine gun [3] Colt M4 .22LR [4]

There are many more AR-15 style gun in .22 caliber

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_rifle#Definition

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Remington_MSR

[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American-180

[4] https://waltherarmsusa.com/walther-colt-m4-ops-22lr-carbine-...

That measure specifically exempted fossil fuels.

According to that wiki link [1]

Others opposed the measure because section 9(c) specifically exempted "Fossil fuels directly or eventually supplied to a light and power business for purposes of generating electricity" from the carbon tax.[3] This meant that coal, gas, and diesel power plants would not directly be responsible for paying the carbon tax.

Also, midterms have a much lower voter turnout and in Washington it was 58.9% in 2018 vs 75.71% in 2020 [2]

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2018_Washington_Initiative_163...

[2] https://ballotpedia.org/Voter_turnout_in_United_States_elect...

> The data is conclusive on Single Parent vs. Two Parent and it's not even close.

Not sure where single parents come into this? I have no strong opinion on it one way or another. I was referring to the the argument for having both biological parents in the house, that it doesn't automatically mean the home environment is healthy. It doesn't mean that having both biological parents in the home automatically equals support for the child. That is what is lost on that argument, that the actual physical and mental well being and support of the child is not automatically granted just because it's traditional nuclear family home.

There are other family structures that can more than provide for the physical, monetary, and mental health of the child. Coming from a traditional (US) Southern up-bring, the moralizing I heard is how all the social problems can easily be solved if the parents would just "work out" their problems. At that time, and still in places today, it was code for the wife to shut up and obey her husband - and if he beats her, what did she do to upset him? if he sexually assaults her, wait, just kidding, he cant because providing sex was her on-demand-duty. Is he beating, berating or sexually abusing the children? No one will ever know because if it's happening, the wife is socially blamed (if it leaks out) for failing her duties and no-one dares talk about it. Mostly the same for the wife treating a child in this way, except this time the blame and responsibility is rightfully hers, if it ever gets out. Having women work outside of the house really messed up this racket, thats a lot of self-serving control to lose for those that have lost it, or the promise of it, and the moralizing I hear because of it got louder. My point being, obviously our experiences of childhood and family are all different - however, this is the lens I, and many others, view through

I had tried over the years and even went back to the school, when I visited the city a number of years after. It was a large school and turn over was common. Not to date myself, but this was decades ago - they would be near or in their 90's and a very common name.

Maybe it worked out better this way, it keeps me honest - like the lack of closure keeps me from storing it away and forgetting the lesson in it.

> As I grow older, I see a huge divide between those who have/had parental support vs those who don't/didn't.

This really gets lost in the traditional nuclear family argument. From personal experience, having both biological parents in the same house doesn't mean a healthy family environment, and no amount of moralizing is going to wish it into being.

Also overlooked is the impact one can have through simple acts of support and empowerment.

Had a High School teacher that let me into a photojournalism class that was already full (the school admins denied my schedule transfer after we had moved to the 'correct' side of the street (literally) and into an upper middle class school district). This teacher simply allowed me to be socially-weird-awkward-me and set a basic structure to thrive in (eventually winning state and national awards with the school newspaper). By giving me (and others) a chance to show we belonged and could compete helped build my self-esteem after it had been consistently torn down at home.

Didn't know it then, and doubt that teacher has any idea, but it changed the course of my life. I think I'm more a practical realist or even a cynic about life and society than I am optimistic - still, that experience reminds me to try and build others up and pay that empowerment forward

Assuming you are in the US, and depending on your state laws, you can go to your County Clerks office and file an Assumed Name for Unincorporated Business (DBA). That is enough to open a business bank account and use that name for the Apple Developer program. It also won't have all your information plastered all over the place like LLCs/Corps (from personal experience with both)

> As an experiment, look at the people you know on medication (or ask), look at the troubled children, etc. I guarantee you'll see the same trend: single parent home, started medication at an early age, regular therapist appointments, etc. They're unhappy and need depressants, ADHD medication, etc.

That sounds like me. My parents are stilled married and about to have their 45th anniversary. The extended family are all on their first marriage and in retirement age or raising families.

I started medication after 30, mental health is not a valid thing in my traditional family. According to them, my struggles were because I hadn't learned my proper place yet. Shame and ridicule from adults, and allowing others in the family to participate, was their idea of proper treatment that would 'fix' me into being a proper young lady. This after their first attempts to keep me in line failed. After that, exclusion within family events, that I was forced to attend, was the treatment of choice. At least less parental attention meant they couldn't keep reminding me how defective I was.

Unsurprisingly, I was very unhappy and depressed. Then I decided to love myself and see the absolute dysfunction this nuclear religious anti-mental health family idea is. Now, I am the most well-traveled, curious, adventurous and financially successful person in the family. That didn't happen until I was able to get the help I needed.

By help, I mean medication to do the core things only I'm responsible for in a world that doesn't fit into the way I function. Provide myself with food and shelter as an adult. I am on the higher end of hyperactive ADHD, also dyslexic - which I learned after getting medication for ADHD. I noticed similarities in my niece, I was told I didn't know what I was talking about and that I couldn't be dyslexic or ADHD since I could read and played video games for hours on end.

I don't like medication and it took me a long time to admit it to others, but the world isn't going to change to fit how I function. So, I use medication to fit myself into it for my basic survival needs.

> As such we see more: single parent homes, abundance of medication, reduction in religion and adult social clubs, etc.

Reduction in religion is not a negitive, I personally experienced it as mental and shaming child abuse within a roman catholic/protestant home. Even now I experience it as other people overstepping themselves by trying to insert and force their righteous will onto my personhood and that of my nieces/nephews. I have a difficult time understanding how this is still allowed and even valued. Of course my family also doesn't see or remember any of this the way I do.

It's just more communism and less freedom.

How does women entering the work force (from your previous post) equal less freedom? Less freedom for whom? Certainly not women. Since you equate more communism with less freedom, I will assume you agree that money provides freedom, if women can only work as unpaid housewives, they have no freedom. It has nothing to do with their husband, cruel, unfair, or otherwise. This may be surprising, but not all women want kids or marriage, or may want them but also find great joy in working accomplishments - many just did not have those options in any safe stable way until recently. (historicity speaking)

That's not less freedom, it's more, for both women and men (not as much stigma or pressure for not being the 'provider' when they may not want to be) - it does lessen some power and control males have historicity had over society and others. And that can be threatening for those who enjoy limiting others freedoms and controlling them.

HEB is sorely missed when I live in or visit other states and go grocery shopping.

Beside national brands, they source from quality local small businesses, farms and ranches, and even make a wide range of their own "generic" brand food - including fresh foods like meal-simples (a complete meal for one, ready for the oven w/cooking directions), or even a full bbq joint in some stores. Their Central Market food brand found in HEB's is usually cheaper, fresher and healthier than national brands. But if you want higher end organics in majors cities, their Central Market stores in Austin put the original Whole Foods to shame, IMO. The few times I would go to Randells or Walmart would be during larger holidays when HEB was closed and those stores were generally more expensive, had questionable produce and a disappointing selection of just about everything else in comparison.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H-E-B

Had a friend vent about their parents cutting a phone call off cause the parents were 'having breakfast with friends' and they were about to be on again. on tv. friends == fox & friends.

As far as I am aware I still need to agree to the terms that the state of TX has set in order to legally drive my truck on public roads within the state. Meaning a driver's license, current insurance, and current registration. I would not need those for driving US military vehicles, tractors or horses. If this is no longer the case, please show me where I can find that information as I would very much like to not deal with that regulatory mess any more.

> We don't bat an eye when a cop uses such tools to pull all of your license/insurance information during a traffic stop.

In order to legally drive we basically enter into a contract with the state agreeing to the terms it set. Keeping a current license, registration, insurance etc. During a traffic stop, it is a requirement to hand over the documents, if asked, so they can verify you are within the law. Atleast in the parts of the US that I am familiar with. Same for travel and other government documents, if you want to legally move between borders, you agree to their terms or stay put.

Having random creep take a pic of someone and get their address so they can visit later on, would be a very big problem.

Was this down voted because the horse manure comment?

To clarify, I meant that quite literally. Horses are considered a legal vehicle. It is not uncommon to see people riding horses (small groups, solo, & APD mounted patrol) along the shoulder of a road or along the creek and river trails in central/south/southeast/east Austin, especially on the weekends. Probably other places too, but those are the areas I am familiar with.

It is certainly more common to see horse manure in the city than it is to see the human feces or needles that was alluded to in the comment I replied too. At least, in my personal experience spanning decades.

Personally can't recall ever seeing needles or human feces in or around Austin. Some areas/alleyways around 4th-7th can get pretty urine-y on the weekends.

Generally speaking, one is more likely to run into horse manure around Austin.

> A medical procedure to save the life of the mother isn't an abortion.

See Ectopic Pregnancy https://my.clevelandclinic.org/health/diseases/9687-ectopic-...

> I know many mothers and not one is missing any body parts as a direct result of childbirth.

That is a really small sample to decide that it is okay for the government to interfere into the private medical decisions between it's citizens and their doctor.

> You’ll have to be more specific if you don’t want this to parse as nonsense.

To accept this kind of government overreach without understanding the consequences to independently living breathing humans is unfortunate for the families and lives it will take and harm. The risk that pregnancy carries, especially in older and youngest females and those with pre-existing conditions are risk that the United States of America, of all places, should not be forcing on it's citizens. This country was once a symbol of liberty and freedom and has been losing it's way for a minute now - as most things do periodically. This time it will have long term consequences for families and communities of those not affluent enough to travel for or afford proper medical care, for which-ever choice the patient and their doctor decide is best.

- Severe maternal morbidity [1] - "unexpected outcomes of labor and delivery that result in significant short- or long-term consequences to a woman's health.”

- High-risk pregnancy [2] - "About 50,000 people in the U.S. experience severe pregnancy complications each year."

- Maternal Mortally [3][4]

---

[1] https://www.cdc.gov/reproductivehealth/maternalinfanthealth/...

[2]https://my.clevelandclinic.org/health/diseases/22190-high-ri...

[3]https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/maternal-mo...

[4] https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/hestat/maternal-mortality/2020... - USA version

"Every toxic workplace I’ve been in was usually the result of bad executive leadership, and this was no different."

"...were central to our struggles and the toxicity of the environment. ... two experts in their fields from competing corporations would fail to agree"

"...at best we had a part-time PM for a brief time who volunteered and then moved on"

"...our leads were overworked and lacked the power to create change."

"...I’ve seen managers cry multiple times, and this is one of the places that happened."

"...and I’ve been blessed with colleagues and leads who have seen the worth of it and supported me."

This does not read as though she is blaming "everyone else". Throughout the post there is a very heavy focus on "we" and "our" for referring to the team and the teams stress and lack of empowerment. I thought she went out of her way to make clear it wasnt the team she worked with, but upper management fostering a negative environment.(ex, not supporting the team needing a PM) Finally recognizing that upper leadership and people outside the project injecting themselves into or blocking change, seems like introspection. Finally seeing that this was not right/healthy, is how one gets out of an abusive pattern. This is more of a retrospective than the sprint