Wow, fascinating article. Thank you.
Will show my wife who muttered after seeing the umpteenth tiresome post on x "I actually agree that we might reconsider that whole 19th amendment".

https://history.house.gov/Inst...

Let's pick a nice round 50y as 'modern relevance' instead of a cherry-picked 24y?
In the 27 two year govt cycles we have had over the last 50y (incl current)
House: 15/12 Dem/GOP control
Senate: 14/12 (you can look up the exceptions yourself)
President: 12/15
Unified (one party controls all 3)
As for the Supremes, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... well, that's the result of the 12/15 president bias.
So basically your victim narrative is ALREADY bullshit.

The fact that you don't seem to grasp that the problem with Obamacare (which you're right, was Romneycare before that) is the FEDERAL OVERREACH, not the plan itself, shows your own little Overton window. You don't get to define the frame of the argument.

The liberals ARE responsible for a lot that goes wrong because they insist they have some sort of monopoly on truth, and are certain of their own infallibility.

The subject of your post is Kessler Syndrome, but Kessler Syndrome is definitely not a concern with these LEO constellations. Anything not regularly reboosted at these altitudes quickly deorbits because they're flying within the outer edges of the atmosphere. Kessler Syndrome is a potential problem at higher orbits where stuff in orbit tends to stay in orbit for a very long time, making accumulation problematic.

As for being hit by falling space junk, It's super rare for stuff that has reached orbit to hit the ground. That tends to be a concern with stuff that doesn't quite make it to orbit, which is one of many reasons why launch reliability is important.

Besides Kessler? These satellites cannot cause Kessler Syndrome precisely because they deorbit. There may be ill effects of burning a few hundred tons of material in the upper atmosphere every year, we'll have to see, but Kessler Syndrome is definitely not an issue.

OK, sigh:
- IANAIL (I am not an immigration lawyer) but 'due process' doesn't mean everyone gets to stand in front of a judge. As I understand, it is longstanding precedent (since 2009 Obama admin, iirc) that illegals CAN be arrested and processed and moved around without the sorts of requirements needed for legal citizens. Thus: this IS due process, for them, according to our laws.
- denying free speech re the DoD: (shrug) it's certainly a break from practice. Then again, news agencies used to also go fetch the news, not rely on it being spoon fed to them by govt officials. I FULLY agree with the requirements for escorted access (that it was ever otherwise is insane), and explicitly stating that if they're soliciting leakers that will be weighed against their future access. Most of the organizations there have more or less declared themselves OPENLY in opposition to the president. That's fine, if you want to throw off the (faux) mantle of objectivity, why can't the president play along? Would it have been better if Fox/Newsmax *had* agreed?
- most of his claims are clearly in the tenor of a joke or trolling the hypersensitive left. I find it amusing personally that the Left loses any conception of idiom, exaggeration, sarcasm, or vernacular where Trump is concerned. Yesterday I saw a snip of a Trump conversation "Vladimir, how would you like it if I gave Zelensky 1000 Tomahawks?" to which the tame leftists trotted out "US presidents never asked an enemy for permission before..."...I mean, that's just stupid.

Then I'd say either you're not paying attention, or it's confirmation bias "I agree with them, how could that be biased?" - don't get me wrong, that's a natural human view point.
But to claim you've never heard a single example is...rather on the order of the (apocryphal) "I don't know a single person who voted for Nixon" in 1972...

And further, please don't think I'm implying that the problem's not WORSE on much of the MAGA side of the fence. (Then again, considering the public discourse in the last 5 years, it's apparent that 'anyone not toeing the line on Leftist talking points = MAGA' which itself is deeply, obviously, dishonest. )

How about an NPR editor saying it himself? https://www.thefp.com/p/npr-ed...

Bill Maher, hardly a right wing commentator, has asserted NPR has a hard left bias: https://www.facebook.com/TheHi...
Katherine Maher herself PERSONALLY is...awful. https://www.reddit.com/r/liber...
"...(the truth) might be a bit of distraction, getting in the way of getting important things done."
Sorry: from my POV I can't even conceive of the mindset that could utter those words in that order. And she's THE BOSS.

Allsides says it leans left https://www.allsides.com/news-...
Media Bias says it's left-center https://mediabiasfactcheck.com...
Adfont says it skews left https://adfontesmedia.com/wp-c...

How do you define a "woman" again, Mr Brain Surgeon?

(shrug)
Oh, I'm "scary" am I?

I myself was told directly to "shut the fuck up" since Biden won.
Oh, and through most of the Obama years.

Did you think that approach was never going to come back and bite your team in the ass? Of course not; your self-righteousness is infinite.
OF COURSE NOT: you morons couldn't see that the nonsense of Jan 6 was directly the result of your (gov't, media, allies) affirmation, tolerance, and outright praise of MONTHS of George Floyd riots and violence.

You didn't think perhaps that normalizing that conduct "Fiery, but mostly peaceful protests" was going to be used by (morons) on the other side of the fence you dumb fuckers?

Maybe 4 years of the Fed telling people how far they should stand apart*, or when they were allowed to visit their nursing home loved ones, or shutting down churches (but not strip clubs) has inured the average voter to absurd government overreach?
*which Fauci - sorry, "Mr I Am Science" has since admitted he pulled out of his ass.

Quiver all you like over how 'scary' it is but karma has always been known to be a bitch. Don't like it? Assemble voters* and change policy but right now my $ would be betting in favor of at least 4 more GOP years after Trump, if the best you can field are Sanders (lol), AOC (lol), or Newsome (double lol). Maybe you could find a candidate that self-identifies as a winner?

*actual voters, not millions of illegals you'd certainly intended to make into a guaranteed impenetrable Dem voting block.

Really, I have to congratulate those tireless organizers who have fought hard to unionize the lowest tiers of otherwise-unemployable workers doing scutwork in the bowels of Amazon's vast warehouse network. You have managed to ensure that these workers get better wages, better benefits, and overall better conditions than they originally agreed to in many cases. This is commendable.

However, you have also ensured and motivated the bean-counters at Amazon to aggressively pursue methods of replacing these workers as quickly as possible. Scutwork is scutwork, and in the same way we replaced ditch-diggers with backhoes, warehouse pick/packers doing nearly-mindless work in an industrialized economy were eventually doomed to the same fate.

To be sure, those workers certainly would have eventually BEEN replaced as automated systems become cheaper and more reliable. But don't despair - your efforts weren't in vain, you absolutely accelerated the process!

Congrats, Workers Unite!

Latest speculation (by the weather balloon company itself) is a Windborne weather balloon
https://arstechnica.com/space/...

Maybe the moment we said "we will ignore facts if they're painful or sad" was really the beginning of the end?

If a study came out that said white males are on average 10 iq points dumber than any other combination of race and sex, it would make the news.

Out of the (very roughly) 8 combinations, it's the only one that could be discussed without accusations of racism.

Next you're going to tell me that Teams and OneDrive are shit too.

In the new CEO's expertly crafted I-am-villain statement; he explains: "The past, he added in an email, is “simply not relevant to the new future.”"

I, um, guess it was polite of him to not talk about "the bigger picture" to the people whose eyes he shut down?

This is a common strain of misunderstanding I see all over the place. People think that evolution is somehow magical and that what it produces is mystically better because it's "natural". That's all garbage.

Evolution is a random process. There's no intelligence guiding it, nothing that ensures that the "choices" it makes are the best alternatives or can't have horrific consequences. In fact, the vast majority of evolutionary changes are utter failures that immediately get selected out.

Also, it's silly to claim that climate change is moving "too fast for evolution". Evolution absolutely can and will respond to climate change... it might be that corals go extinct and something else evolves to fill their niche in ocean ecology, or it might be that corals do evolve in something like their current form. Evolution is fine either way and will produce something that settles into a new equilibrium. It might not be an equilibrium humans like, and it might not settle fast enough to make us happy, but we need to realize that what we're concerned about isn't the ecosystem -- that will survive regardless, unless we get into some runaway feedback loop that turns Earth into Venus, or Neptune -- what we're concerned about is maintaining an environment that we're accustomed to.

Given all of that, our potential creation of genetically-modified corals isn't somehow subverting evolution, it's just another evolutionary avenue. Rather than random mutations, we'll create some specific ones and then we'll throw them into the mix and see if they get selected for or against. The same mutations we create deliberately could also have occurred randomly and would that make the outcome any less "natural"?

And if we've already altered the environment so much that our preferred ecosystem is going away anyway, what's the harm in trying to use CRISPR CAS-9 to "guide" evolution in a direction we'd prefer, rather than letting it randomly go in whatever direction it will? Could our genetic modifications make things worse? Sure! Could random mutations also make things worse? Sure! Which is more likely to maintain an ecosystem of the sort we enjoy? No one can say for sure, but in general if you want to get from point A to point B you're better off aiming for B rather than just walking randomly.

Even better would be to stop changing the climate, but at this point all we can do is try to limit the amount we're changing it. And we should do that! But the best that we can do might still not be enough for corals as we know them, so if we like reefs and reef ecosystems (and we really do; I'm an avid SCUBA diver and I love reef ecosystems), then we should probably put some effort into researching modifications that can survive warmer and more acidic oceans.

Both are true, I think. Without discussion and care the numbers would probably be an order of magnitude larger, maybe two... but that's still very small.