Wrong, âoeslopâ means excessive amout of AI content. It can be quite accurate and correct and still be called slop.

This could also be fake, designed to make people like that look stupid by basically satirizing their rants

One of the lessons we've had as the Federal, multi-branch nature of the US governmennt has frustrated Trump is that the government may be fucking us over, but it's not doing it in *unison*. It's doing it piecemiel, on the initiative of many interests working against each other, just as the framers intended. The motto on the Great Seal notwithstanding, there are myriad roadblocks to consolidating power in the hands of a single individual. It takes time and repeated failures. This is why the second Trump Adminsitration is worse than the first; they've figured out ways around things like Congressional power of the purse, put more of their henchmen in the judiciary, and normalized Congress lying down and letting the president walk all over them. It's a serious situation, although fortunately Trump isn't long for this world.

I hate all of this sales pressure BS - that the instant anyone hears your name you have to try to "convert" them to sales - and I literally run a webstore.

It's all so deeply anti-consumer, and I want no part in it.

Some states are not allowing RealID that has an address outside the voting precinct. This is why Student IDs are needed. Certainly when I was at school my driver's license indicated I lived in a different state.

ReadID does not include an indication of citizenship and non-citizens can get them.

It is unfortunate that some of the items that can be used to get a RealID are also proof of citizenship and thus they could have added this information to the card at that time. I'm not sure what to do if somebody thinks they are a citizen but lack any of the acceptable proofs, they may have to get the RealID without the citizenship indicator if they need it soon, and there will have to have another option than a RealID to register to vote.

None of this has anything to do with using RealID or any other license or card at the polling station. That is ONLY to prove you are using the right name, you have to be registered in order to vote.

You need ID to register to vote. Stop lying.

Do you carry your birth certificate with you because you needed it to get your passport?

The ID at voting is supposed to confirm that the person is a particular registered voter. If they are not allowed to vote then they would not be registered.

I do agree that people would feel more comfortable about the voting system if voters produced a physical object rather than the current scheme of saying a name that is registered and they can assume nobody else will say. If they allowed a few obvious things like Student ID's or utility bills the number of disenfranchised voters would be small enough that it would not effect the voting results (it would not be zero though so there will always be sob stories for opponents of ID). Crossing names off in a register is still going to be done since that is the real prevention of fraud (including stolen IDs), but public comfort even if it can be proven that the IDs do nothing can be considered a useful goal.

The Republican attacks on the ability to register to vote are pretty serious. IMHO anything done by the government that happens to know if you are eligible to vote should automatically register you, in particular getting a RealID drivers license, and quite a few methods of applying for benefits. The attacks on mail-in voting are also blatant, mail-in votes are a good deal more secure than any non-biometric ID since they require the voter to have access to the mailbox that the numbered ballot is delivered to. I also personally know I will be out of the country on Election Day so I am personally disenfranchised by this. The continuous claim that the only thing in that bill is ID at voting is a LIE, stop doing it.

But the positive things I or others do, shouldn't be a requirement to criticize an decrees in public funding for those things, or the lack of personal charity. Say what you want about Gates, he does appear to be incredibly creepy, however at least he has given huge chunks of money away and I hope he continues to do that.

Personally, More than any financial adviser says is prudent, given my income level. I used to be hands on in the trenches, but funding was bad, so I figured the better way was to work for much more money and donate to the hands on charities doing the work.

Firstly, I see you have this notion that martian rocks must all be igneous.

You're not talking about rock, you're talking about regolith.

Depending on where the regolith is sourced

Regolith is not "sourced", it's blown across the whole planet. It's not simply "whatever the underlying strata is made out of".

But, since we are playing 'name the ignorance' in this exchange, your attestation stat perchlorate is 0.5% liberatable oxygen says 'Say i'm ignorant of basic chemistry without saying i'm ignorant of basic chemistry, and am bad at reading too.' The 0.5% statistic comes from the publication at bottom, and is the proportion of the regolith that is perchlorates.

I am the one who mentioned that regolith is 0.5% perchlorates, not that "perchlorates are 0.5% oxygen". *facepalm*

"Saying we'll get oxygen from the 0,5-1% of a poison in martian regolith, rather than bulk ice or CO2, is..."

For God's sake, learn to fucking read.

Washing the regolith to remove the perchlorate is a requirement for *any* other use of that regolith

Which is why you shouldn't be celebrating its existence. It is a problematic contaminant, not a resource.

As you have rightly pointed out, the water ice on mars is more 'frozen mud'. Cleaning the melt is going to be a necessary first step to using it *regardless*. That means either vacuum distillation, thermal distillation, or reverse osmosis filtration. Again, NOT OPTIONAL. This is necessary equipment that you need to bring, regardless.

And this just to get water, the most basic of offworld resources. And all of that equipment (especially the mining hardware itself) requires maintenance and spare parts, which impose more dependencies. And the TRL for use on Mars is low regardless.

You've gone from talking up the ease of operating on Mars to talking it down, yet your self-righteousness hasn't shifted at all in the process.

RO filtration is the least energy intensive of these.

Except, it isn't. 0,5-1% perchlorates. RO typically removes 90-95% of perchlorates. So you're down to ~500ppm. Human safety levels** are in the low parts per billion. You're five orders of magnitude off. Yes, you can purify water that far - and the more perchlorates, the easier - but you're talking an over millionfold reduction. It is not at all trivial. You're talking first RO to get it down to levels where it won't hinder bacterial growth, then bioreactor bacterial remediation, then filtration, then RO, then ion exchange. This is not some little, simple system.

** Plants can tolerate much more perchlorates than humans, but they also bioaccumulate perchlorates of exposed to them, so you have to reduce the water to low ppb levels.

The end products are clean water and perchlorate contaminated mud, and clean mud, with contaminated water.

Viola! *eyeroll*

And your "plan" for dealing with waste perchlorate doesn't just magically produce pure O2 and NaCl in the real world. First off, molten sodium perchlorate, which is what it becomes before it decomposes, is an extremely corrosive oxidizer. Exactly what are you planning to make the furnace out of, platinum? Secondly, you never get perfect decomposition. Apart from residual perchlorates, you have residual sodium chlorate, which is also corrosive, and is a literal herbicide. And your gas stream will contain contaminant chloride and chlorine dioxide, which, news flash, you don't want to breathe.

There is no way on Earth anyone would ever prefer this to just conducting electrolysis on the water that you've already purified.

While that's true, a responsible generation aims to boost the next generation to a *higher* level than the education they received. The world has become more complex and faster-paced, and even if that weren't true, the consequenes of aiming high and falling short are better than the consequences of aiming for the status quo and falling short.

So while I'm 100% onboard with skepticism that technology will magically make education better, I think the argument that "the education I got worked for me should be good for them" isn't a strong argument. What we need is a better ecducation that would have been a better education fifty years ago: stronger math, science, and language skills, general knowledge, and, I think critical thinking and media literacy. Possibly emotional intelligence -- it's kind of pointless to teach people critcial thinking skills if they are carried away by emotions.

There are no economic or security reasons to blockade Cuba, so that leaves *political*.

It used to be believed that bullies were low status individuals who are lashing out out of frustration. But research has shown that bullying is an effective strategy for achieving and maintaining social status. In other words it's a political winner. So the focus of research has shifted from the bully to the people around him who enable the bullying. The inner circle are the henchmen -- people without the charisma and daring to initiate the bullying, but join in when the bully gets things started. Around them are the audience, the people who wouldn't risk participating but enjoy the bullying vicariously. And around them are the much larger group of bystanders, who don't approve but are waiting for someone else to stop the bullying. Then off to the side are the defenders, who stand up to the bully.

Perhaps the least appreciated supporting factor in the phenomenon of the high-status bully is the silence of the bystanders, which is dependent upon the perception of widespread approval. Since you can't visibly see the the line between the approving audience and the apalled bystanders, the silence of the bytstanders is absolutely essential in sustaining the bullying.

Lot's of Americans are apalled at the idea of using military force to inflict suffering on the Cuban people. But that's only politically advantageous *because* of *them*. Tney are indistinguishable from the relatively small number of people who are thrilled when Trump announced he can do anything he wants wtih Cuba. The gap between actual approval and *perceived* approval is absolutely critical in establishign and maintaining any kind of authoritarianism. This is why would be authoritarian leaders are so focused on punishing and marginalizing any kind of expression of disapproval.

What were the "Horrifying ways" exactly? Getting a judge to issue a warrant? Thats obviously a precedent that the government has turned away from using.

Ok Snowden referenced, can we clear the air with him finally? He stole some information and had the guts to divulge it at high personal cost to himself. Great Good and Great. But don't fucking listen to any thing he has to say outside of it. He fled to Russia, which, if it is better at personal liberties than the United states, its only because it doesn't have more money to institute more surveillance. He has no great insight. He did a good thing, that doesn't make him president of doing good things, and certainly not a God like figure others hold him up to be.