Danish millennials and gen xers who work in retirement or old age support roles should change careers. And zers and alphas getting into it should consider hiatuses.

One… glances to the side hundred… more furtive glances billion… number two giving thumbs up and nodding dollars!

To take this in a different direction, legal or not (considering the “higher power” generally gets to define what is and isn’t legal and might do so for its own benefit rather than in the best interest of everyone, if there even is such a thing), how can it be determined if a subset of a power structure breaking away from that power structure is a good thing or bad thing? What arguments other than “we’ll use force” are there to support a region needing to remain under the thumb of a power they no longer wish to serve?

With the 9/11 reference above, it had a similar effect on airport security. The TSA has been making traveling hell ever since and I’m not sure if they’ve actually stopped any real threats (cursory search says nope).

I’m going to be flying from Canada to Canada later this year and want to make sure the flight path stays inside our airspace.

And every year, sand takes the trophy.

Do they need consent from the owner of the house or home? If it’s a rental, the landlord owns the house but it’s the tenant’s home.

Though it’s always kinda messy turning a human-made rule or idea into a physical law.

Though it makes me wonder why they don’t use actual wings to maintain control over the boat when it goes too far out of the water. Why isn’t the ideal basically a plane that has a propeller sticking down into the water?

Even with civilisation or society, there’s always been a subset of people looking to exploit whatever facet of existence they can, whether it be religion, politics, crimes of opportunity, weaknesses in social systems, or even the justice systems that are supposedly meant to deal with those flaws.

And to add even more complexity, other people who aren’t pieces of shit looking to exploit others form emotional attachments to those who are and are fooled by their lies and will defend them. Others don’t have attachments but see parallels to themselves and worry that attempts to deal with the problematic ones will result in the same treatment being applied to them (and aren’t necessarily wrong because even justice trying to act in good faith can get it wrong).

It’s all a complex web of power struggles and religion is just one set of stands.

Even if the original question was asked in bad faith (not that I think this was the case here, but to address what you’re implying with this comment), responding with “go look it up elsewhere” doesn’t negate its effect for anyone reading. I believe it plays into those bad faith hands because it looks like you don’t want the question answered here to anyone already suspicious of the situation.

The problem with imperialists is that they might say they are happy with whatever the current concession is on the table today but will still want to expand their power beyond whatever limits it currently has tomorrow.

From what I recall about the reasoning behind abandoning the idea of closing Guantanamo Bay, the only options were releasing them in central park or keeping them in Guantanamo Bay.

I don’t think there are any good guys at the top of any international power pyramids.

Move the battlefield to one where the outcome doesn’t affect you and you’ll never really lose.

Plus, while you’re winning, it being a normal thing will mean you’ll get plenty of blackmail material on those who it does affect but who also prefer the connections that staying on your side gives. And you can prosecute your opponents that openly defy the ban.

If they did that themselves, then they would know when a user was trying to access their porn from Florida, defeating the benefit a vpn would provide.

Feels like they are the same thing.

Yeah, this should probably be approached from the angle of “someone might do this, so we should do research to be prepared”.

Research ways to improve containment to reduce the chance of an accidental containment breach.

And research ways to quickly determine the weaknesses of such synthetic lifeforms if a breach happens anyways. Also to be prepared in case someone deliberately weaponizes it.

By the way, this kind of thing is why IMO if we ever do find extra terrestrial life, attempting to make any kind of physical contact or even land on the planet might end up dooming both our own species (and maybe all current complex life on Earth) as well as any complex life on that other planet. They could have basic forms of life that are entirely different from our own and completely invisible to our immune systems.

Though it would probably also have cool results in a few hundred million years, after microbial life has evolved defenses and perhaps some hybridizations.

I think they are saying the odds are low that it will be just one nuke. More likely none, several, or a lot than just one.

I believe it was just one of them, a free trading platform (Robin Hood?) that made its money by selling its trade stream before it could be executed (which means they can make free money by exploiting inefficient trades, at the expense of clients of the platform). It was pressured by the company that buys that trade data to halt buys.

Since a large portion of the people buying shares were on that platform, the whole thing lost momentum (when it was on the way to paying off). Though, if it had been allowed to continue, it might have broken the entire economy because the short squeeze didn’t have a maximum on the amount those betting against GME could lose and such scenarios end up in a vicious cycle where price just keeps going up because there’s an obligation to buy shares (to cover in the case of calls or back in the case of short selling).

Previous successful short squeezes (eg: Porsche) only ended when the entity doing the squeeze negotiated a way out for the shorters. But in GME’s case, it was a crowd sourced squeeze where everyone wanted their lambos as a result and weren’t going to negotiate but each choose at what price they were willing to be bought out.

What it should have done was cause some investigations about how funds operate and lead to some big changes in how funds and trading platforms handle short selling (in this case, they had oversold the number of outstanding shares, meaning there weren’t enough shares to ever cover if the short was squeezed, and calls that market makers just kept selling multiplied that).

Instead there were a few senate hearings and then it fizzled out. I don’t recall any actual changes resulting from it. Many tried to blame the public doing the squeeze because they weren’t rich enough to exploit the system or something.

I’ve been there, it’s not even a good park if you ignore the animal cruelty, and I thought this as a kid.