I imagine we’ll synthesize whatever chemical is inhibiting the methane production and it’ll become a standard feed supplement.

Hopefully, it can be produced by some type of GMO grass and can be sown into hay fields.

https://caes.ucdavis.edu/news/feeding-cattle-seaweed-reduces-their-greenhouse-gas-emissions-82-percent

We The People do not recognize your small group as independent. You are living in our society, utilizing our roads, our government, industrial, and commercial infrastructure. Your declaration of independence is nonsensical so long as you are dependent on the rest of us.

We The People.

Some of y’all motherfuckers need to take a goddamn civics class.

Or, and hear me out on this: terrorist doesn’t mean “fucking anything ever”. The term actually only refers to those who use or threaten unlawful violence in an attempt to achieve an effect that could only be lawfully acquired through executive, legislative, judicial, or democratic processes.

If I wanted your clothes, I wouldn’t have left them at goodwill.

“Disrespectful” would be telling you that you in particular should continue to use windows or mac, and avoid Linux like the plague.

Do you actually want to run an application that doesn’t exist on Linux?

I use a virtual machines for the 2 or 3 times a year I need to use a couple garbage windows-only programs. Usually for configuring some arcane piece of proprietary hardware that people were getting rid of because it is incompatible with everything.

Well, yeah. I mean, help desk deals with users at their moment of peak incompetence. If 1 in 20 users can’t figure out that “Office” is now “Libre office”, help desk is going to be swamped.

The solution is to merge help desk and HR, so that something productive can be done about PEBCAK issues.

Uh huh.

I have zero doubt that you would call 911 should the “need” arise. So you’re a terrorist as well. As am I. There is literally zero distinction between you, me, and Mohamed Atta.

A puppy would qualify as a terrorist. A house cat. A sheep. A blackberry bush. An amoeba qualifies as a terrorist under this insane definition.

By that argument, a “no shirt, no shoes, no service” policy is terrorism. “$1000 fine for littering” is terrorism. “Keep off the grass” is terrorism.

It’s not the IT folks who need to be pushed. It’s the users.

As it applies to residence, the concept of “renting” is fundamentally broken and damaging. “Renting” is a commercial activity; “housing” is a human necessity. Combining the two is inherently exploitative, so “ALAB” is a reasonable and apt observation.

Renting is fantastic. You want to build a house or buy a house, or renovate your house, but it takes a few months? You move to a new area, temporary job relocation for a project? You rent. From someone who owns a house. Called a landlord. They are providing the service of making this available for you in an area you want.

A better option in these scenarios is a “land contract”. This is, basically, a rent-to-own scenario. During the initial period, if the occupant withdraws or defaults on the contract, they forfeit any equity they have built, just like a rental.

Unlike a rental, however, there is no annual increase in the rent: the purchase price is fully amortized, and (so long as they maintain the agreement past the initial period), the tenant gains equity with every payment and every increase in market value.

That full amortization / fixed payment is the main reason why landlords don’t currently like land contracts. They want to be able to command a 5-10% price hike every year.

To make land contracts the better option for landlords, we can establish an owner-occupant credit against property taxes. A landlord is a non-occupant owner, and is not entitled to the credit. Under a land contract, the occupant is considered the owner, and eligible for the credit. With a sufficiently high property tax rate on non-occupant investor-owners, a landlord stands to earn a significantly greater return on land contracts or private mortgages than they can earn on renting a given property.

ALAB because “renting” residential property is abhorrent behavior.

Owner Occupancy Credit against property taxes. If you live in a house you own, you get a credit. If you own the house and don’t live in it, you pay the full rate. Enact an owner-occupancy credit against property taxes, then increase both the tax rate and the credit until these corporate bagmunchers are no longer a problem.

“But landlords will just raise their rent to cover the increase”. They could try. But, if we raise it high enough, they will be able to make far more money issuing a private mortgage, or offering a land contract, or converting to condominiums, or otherwise getting their tenant’s names on the deed and becoming eligible for the credit.

“But these landlords will be forced to take a risk on these sub prime borrowers.”. They are already taking that risk by renting to them, and the remedy is basically the same: if they can’t make their payments, evict them, take back the house, and offer it to someone else.

The only residential property that should be feasible to rent are the additional units in a duplex, triplex, or quadplex, where the owner of the building lives on site in one of the units. Outside of these small, multifamily homes, “rent” should be a practice found only in commercial or industrial real estate.

You’ve become conditioned to consider a “nudge” to be lane assist helpfully pushing on the steering wheel, to move you toward the center of the lane. Your muscle memory reacts to such a nudge by accepting it, allowing it.

30 years of driving has conditioned me to consider a “nudge” to be an indication that something is pushing on the car, moving me away from where I intend to be. My muscle memory reacts to such a nudge by immediately arresting that push and reversing it.

Ever drive on a construction zone where they’ve started to rip up pavement and half the lane is an inch higher than the other half? Ever change lanes into that lane, and feel the steering fight you or lurch as you cross that lip?

The problem isn’t the strength needed to overcome the lane assist. It’s easy to fight it. The problem comes when you know you are well centered in the lane. But, all the sudden, you’re being pushed left or right, and you have to quickly determine whether you’re feeling uneven pavement. Or maybe a tie rod end or a ball joint has some slop in it. Maybe the power steering pump is leaking and running dry. Or, maybe the fucking lane assist thinks a strip of tar in the middle of the lane is a lane marker, and it wants me to cross the centerline.

The problem isn’t whether or not I can take it in a fair fight. The problem is that it throws a punch.

Lane assist seems to agree with you. It is only able to do its job on the highway. Elsewhere, it actively seeks head-on collisions.

We already have the legal mechanism necessary to enact mandatory training.

The militia is “the whole of the people”. Congress is empowered under Article I Section 8 parts 15 and 16 to “prescribe discipline” (read: “training standards”) for the militia. They don’t have the power to mandate training only to those people who choose to keep and bear arms, but they do have the power to mandate training for everyone.

So, let’s have a high school, senior-year class on safe handling. More importantly, let’s have a class on the laws regulating the use of force, so everyone is aware of when we can use force against another, and when force may be used against us.

In my experience, lane assist is pretty good on the highways, and actively terrible everywhere else.

The only “feature” I hated more than lane assist was hill start assist. Chirped my tires, or stalled completely, on every fucking hill.

I’m all for this. I mean, gunpowder is not particularly difficult to manufacture. If the legal sources of ammunition charge $5000 per bullet, I could make a fortune with blackmarket black powder.

(Ok, I’m not actually “all for this”…)