Jesuits have done some decent work for humanity, but they are not scientists, mostly because they start from a premise they want to be true and find evidence for it instead of the other way around.
Edit: in fact, why did knowledge need to be “curated” through the Dark Ages? I’ll give you a hint: it starts a “C” and ends with an “atholicism”
po-tay-to, po-tah-to
The idea that humans need the diverse micro ecology of earth in order to not become ill over the course of generations is pretty interesting.
Really pretty well-supported by current science, too. I teach chemistry at a community college, so maybe I’m an outlier, but I read a ton of current research about the importance of diversity in “gut biomes” and the damaging effects of monoculture on global ecology, etc.
It seems pretty clear that even if engineers could solve the physical and chemical issues with a generation ship, the limiting constraints are almost certainly going to be biological and ecological, and KS Robinson’s estimates for the upper limits seem pretty reasonable based on current knowledge
Someone what mentioned Kim Stanley Robinson’s Red Mars trilogy, and that is really good, but his book Aurora is almost exactly what you are describing.
Highly recommend.
I always heard he was more of a fan of speed, which explains why he didn’t have to stop his set every 15min to have another line.
And let’s not forget the Giants’ amazing reliever, Pablo Sandoval (0.00 ERA and 0.00 WHIP)!
For those not in the loop, he was a (seemingly) overweight 3rd baseman who made phenomenally athletic plays and hit monster home runs (especially in the postseason, leading to 3 World Series trophies and a WS MVP), earning the nickname “Kung Fu Panda.”
Then, in the twilight of his career, he also pitched 2 innings without allowing a baserunner, becoming a bit of an SF meme, including at least one “Let Pablo Pitch” bobblehead.
Excellent work; I’m gonna have to add this to my emoji meme collection (which up until now has consisted entirely of one meme)
“wait, it’s all projection?”
“Always has been”
🌎 👨🚀 🔫 👩🚀
And the classic, “hold my beer”
This is the correct answer.
Both. But mostly you’re sick of being in a car with your family (IME)
Such a good movie…
This is the correct answer.
I have a very specific viewpoint on this issue, as I live in a vacation destination. Various investors are buying up every property that comes up for sale in my community (large corporations, small companies, wealthy individuals looking for vacation homes, etc.)
Every single property that gets bought, gets renovated or otherwise improved to the point that there’s no chance in hell anyone living and working in the community full-time can afford to buy, unless they bought their first property before 2016. Since then, home ownership among my colleagues has become a pipe dream (and without giving away too many personal details, let me just say my colleagues and I are well-educated professionals making way above the median income for jobs in the area).
As I type this out, I’m listening to a million-dollar house being built in the lot behind me (which will almost certainly sit vacant >80% of the time), a shit rental being turned over next door (which charges $3k/mo for a 3/1.5), and two short-term vacation rentals partying across the street (which usually charge at least $300-$400/night).
Regardless of who it is, investors buying up housing is a huge problem for people that are trying to own their own home, especially first-time buyers.
That doesn’t mean “is a symptom, not a cause.” If it’s actually supply and demand, then the investors buying the housing is part of the problem, not just a symptom. The investors are decreasing supply and increasing demand, so it’s really two sides of the same coin.
Personally, I think that just building more houses isn’t the answer, because the corporations can just keep buying them up. This will continue to artificially decrease supply and increase demand, which keeps them making a profit. And as long as corporations can make a profit with this model, they will (and people will continue to suffer).
Naw, I think this is better. I’ve seen the “… and worked” version of this question lots of times, but I want the actual bottom of the barrel this time.
Don’t get me wrong; “… and worked” still yields funny answers every time, but this is more interesting to me.
I think “woke” actually does have a definition, put forth by DeSantis’s lawyers, IIRC. I don’t want to go find it right now, but it was something along the lines of “aware of and acknowledging the existence of systematic racism in the United States.”
But more broadly, these days it just means “progressive” without defining any specific arena, so personally, I think woke is a valid way to describe a movie. In fact, if a movie doesn’t have at least some “woke” themes, I’m not too interested in seeing it these days.
It would be interesting to see this on a log scale. Simple enough to do, but I’m on mobile and I’m not that interested
I mean, to be honest, I tend to like pretentious sci-fi, so I still might give it a chance, but thanks for giving me some context for prioritization
They didn’t outright deny it (out loud), but they cast doubt and equivocate about the parts that don’t agree with their preexisting worldview.