That's entirely my point though: we can't reason with a deadly virus, but we can with most humans. Or at least some humans. OK maybe a few. The point is, I don't think it's logical to throw in the towel.

That isn't human exceptionalism in my view, either: because I don't believe we're inherently special animals when it comes to how we treat the environment. My point is that most animals inherently exploit resources, and drive others to extinction. We just managed to make guns and power tools and propaganda. Once humans are gone, we have no reason to think that any species that manages to start some technologically advanced civilization will be any better. So either we eradicate all biological life to ensure that it doesn't eradicate biological life...or we try to improve humanity, because despite things, we can often be reasoned with. Humanity has gotten better, even though it hasn't improved enough, when looking at human civilization over the last few thousand years. That's my point: not that we don't deserve calamity, but that we can - if we fight hard enough - try to steer our own species toward a better future for everyone.

Who knows though, maybe if humanity is gone the bonobos will rise up to take our place. They're pretty chill, all things considered.

If your eyeballs are missing, I can make an assumption that your vision isn't great just by looking at you. That's not a moral judgement.

Doesn't mean blood tests are useless, and in fact it means we have some idea where to start investigating a potential health problem.

Yes, I agree that there's bias against folks who are overweight, and also that there's a range of risk associated with being overweight. It's pretty clear, however, that obesity is a health concern that we should take seriously. If someone smokes five pack of cigs a day, I'm going to make an assumption about their lung health. There's always outliers that live to 100 smoking and not doing exercise, but it would be a shit doctor if they didn't tell folks not to follow their example.

You're joking, but the covfefe thing was almost more ridiculous, given they pretended it was intentional and claimed that an inside group knew exactly what he meant.

The solutions I've seen require a fundamental rethinking of the way housing works in the USA (and most places), where renting just turns into another way to build some amount of equity, and the property managers are under more democratic control. More of the process subsidized by the local government, in the same way that water treatment is.

Arguably it's renting by another name, but the central point is to strip the profit motive out of it (some salaries are needed, but in a system with more regulatory oversight) and to allow the renter to get some financial benefit so they aren't simply pissing money away.

Apologies in advance for that vague response: I'm not an economist or real estate expert, so I can't back up that general idea with any kind of details or evidence it's feasible.

I saw your post the other day and didn't have anything constructive to add (my instinct was to say 'just see where it goes, but don't force it to be romantic', but I know so little about the situation that it's hollow advice), but I came across this article in the NY Times that might speak to your situation. It talks about limerence, which is a new word for me. I say might, because it might not be what you're feeling, but it's worth a read regardless, and the tips on how to overcome it in the article seem useful (and have backing by different researchers, so they're bound to have more material on the subject that would be potentially related to what you're going through).

Gift link so no paywall: https://www.nytimes.com/2024/01/27/style/limerence-addiction-love-crush.html?unlocked_article_code=1.RU0.qcHQ.OMOM2nOkSCqy&smid=url-share

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jN7mSXMruEo&t=559s

There is a good visualization in this video (These Stupid Trucks are Literally Killing Us by Not Just Bikes) at the timestamp I linked (roughly 9 minutes 19 seconds), cited from KidsAndCars.org

Jesus you and everyone who commented on this comment is dumb fuck

You said, in your comment to my comment...

Look: you're putting so many words in my mouth, it's probably not worth replying, so...

Bluetooth intercom with helmet speakers are a game changer!

Can also keep earplugs in, which is good to avoid worse tinnitus than what I already have...

To reply to myself, because it merits its own giant text box: for anarchist-minded folks like myself, I'd highly recommend reading Homage to Catalonia, because it gives some glimpse of how things might work in a less-hierarchical military (in the cases like in Trek's Starfleet that weapons are sometimes unfortunately needed).

https://gutenberg.net.au/ebooks02/0201111.txt

The main sections I want to quote are:

The essential point of the system was social equality between officers and men. Everyone from general to private drew the same pay, ate the same food, wore the same clothes, and mingled on terms of complete equality. If you wanted to slap the general commanding the division on the back and ask him for a cigarette, you could do so, and no one thought it curious. In theory at any rate each militia was a democracy and not a hierarchy. It was understood that orders had to be obeyed, but it was also understood that when you gave an order you gave it as comrade to comrade and not as superior to inferior. There were officers and N.C.O.s but there was no military rank in the ordinary sense; no titles, no badges, no heel-clicking and saluting. They had attempted to produce within the militias a sort of temporary working model of the classless society. Of course there was no perfect equality, but there was a nearer approach to it than I had ever seen or than I would have thought conceivable in time of war.

But I admit that at first sight the state of affairs at the front horrified me. How on earth could the war be won by an army of this type? It was what everyone was saying at the time, and though it was true it was also unreasonable. For in the circumstances the militias could not have been much better than they were. A modern mechanized army does not spring up out of the ground, and if the Government had waited until it had trained troops at its disposal, Franco would never have been resisted. Later it became the fashion to decry the militias, and therefore to pretend that the faults which were due to lack of training and weapons were the result of the equalitarian system. Actually, a newly raised draft of militia was an undisciplined mob not because the officers called the private 'Comrade' but because raw troops are always an undisciplined mob. In practice the democratic 'revolutionary' type of discipline is more reliable than might be expected. In a workers' army discipline is theoretically voluntary. It is based on class-loyalty, whereas the discipline of a bourgeois conscript army is based ultimately on fear. (The Popular Army that replaced the militias was midway between the two types.) In the militias the bullying and abuse that go on in an ordinary army would never have been tolerated for a moment. The normal military punishments existed, but they were only invoked for very serious offences. When a man refused to obey an order you did not immediately get him punished; you first appealed to him in the name of comradeship. Cynical people with no experience of handling men will say instantly that this would never 'work', but as a matter of fact it does 'work' in the long run. The discipline of even the worst drafts of militia visibly improved as time went on. In January the job of keeping a dozen raw recruits up to the mark almost turned my hair grey. In May for a short while I was acting-lieutenant in command of about thirty men, English and Spanish. We had all been under fire for months, and I never had the slightest difficulty in getting an order obeyed or in getting men to volunteer for a dangerous job. 'Revolutionary' discipline depends on political consciousness--on an understanding of why orders must be obeyed; it takes time to diffuse this, but it also takes time to drill a man into an automaton on the barrack-square. The journalists who sneered at the militia-system seldom remembered that the militias had to hold the line while the Popular Army was training in the rear. And it is a tribute to the strength of 'revolutionary' discipline that the militias stayed in the field at all. For until about June 1937 there was nothing to keep them there, except class loyalty. Individual deserters could be shot--were shot, occasionally--but if a thousand men had decided to walk out of the line together there was no force to stop them. A conscript army in the same circumstances--with its battle-police removed--would have melted away. Yet the militias held the line, though God knows they won very few victories, and even individual desertions were not common. In four or five months in the P.O.U.M. militia I only heard of four men deserting, and two of those were fairly certainly spies who had enlisted to obtain information. At the beginning the apparent chaos, the general lack of training, the fact that you often had to argue for five minutes before you could get an order obeyed, appalled and infuriated me. I had British Army ideas, and certainly the Spanish militias were very unlike the British Army. But considering the circumstances they were better troops than one had any right to expect.

Compromise time: he's a (mostly) retired Batman, and we can have a younger actor as Batman Beyond?

Sorry, I took a more international route with the terminology: I meant state as in The State, not an individual state in the USA. Federal laws restricting the purchase of a firearm is IMHO the State interfering with the Second Amendment, if you're taking a severely strict interpretation of it.

So that's my question: is it OK to have the Federal restrictions on what you can buy (e.g. requiring a permit!), and from disallowing Felons? I'm a gun owner myself, but if you go back to what I opened with: the discrepancy between "The state can’t then come through and require a permit to own a gun" and seemingly OK with some Federal oversight is a hangup for a lot of us. If a handful of laws are common sense (no felons), why can't we enact other common sense laws?

If I can barge into this comment chain, the confusion seems to stem from your initial comment.

It’s not really “common sense” though. The Constitution clearly says you have a right to own a gun.

The state can’t then come through and require a permit to own a gun.

It’s a Right, not a “right”*.

Isn't the application of an FFL the state requiring a permit to own a (certain kind of) gun? Likewise, the state telling folks they can or can't own guns just because of a few measly felonies...isn't that against a strict interpretation of the Second Amendment? Doesn't that deny them a "Right"?