To be fair, Trek has a canonical nuclear war in like, 2026.

Oof. Such a bad idea. It does demonstrate that "We mostly care that they aren't contributing to taxes" is just a garbage excuse.

Supreme Court is still an important source of perceived legitimacy. The further authoritarians can push the Supreme Court to rubber stamp their power, the weaker public response will be.

Its similar to a form of "divine right" really.

Of course, the Supreme Court has to have its own trust and perceived legitimacy in order to convder it.

This is what basically worked a few years ago. Massive mess, a huge pain, but it worked.

Also, many times they will say some isn't an authentic way to do something, and then you will learn it is authentic for like, a few towns over.

If this actually is about climate - China installed 50% of all new renewable capacity last year. 50% of the entire world.

The lack of specificty is also a strategy used to bolster support for deregulation.

Simply say "we are eliminating regulations" , and dont ever talk about what you are deregulating, because actually many regulations are a net good for society and were implemented for a reason. Preventing companies from dumping poison is a regulation.

Amouranth?

Tech has made things more efficient - the rewards of such are simply being funneled from the average person to the wealthy.

Im going to say the Harvard estimate is probably pretty close. It is probably a bit higher than what you would need on a day to day basis for survival, but enough to help your body maintain some muscle over the long term.

Its not enough for someone wanting to be fit or muscular though.

That diet doctor recommendation feels wildly high for a "what is actually necessary" request. Like 2 g/kg is near the target for bodybuilders.

It might be a good idea for many people to hit that to maximize muscle development in preparation for aging (where muscle deterioration is chief concern), but not a good estimate for anyone who isnt worried about that.

They also say two further things which ding their credibility:

First is this comment: "Because there appears to be a limited amount of protein that can be absorbed at a meal, it may be best to evenly space out your protein throughout the day, if possible."

This is not really a concern even for bodybuilders. You dont need to overthink spacing.

Second is the comment about vegetarians/vegans. Protein intake is not a huge concern for the average vegetarian, if you are not aiming for that unnecessarily high target - as long as they are regularly including some protein in their meals (soy, beans, nuts, eggs). Even for non-vegetarians, that higher target requires you to monitor of your protein intake to hit it regularly with overeating.

This is a classic organizational problem. Different teams have opposing priorities and work against each other (or even against the overall good for the people thet service).

The ability for those on the left to eat each other up never disappoints.

In general, I disagree with you. I think the two things you fixated on (souless architecture and rentals) are bad approaches to density, but you will notice that for the most part, this is the form of "density" that places who are notoriously bad at density do. Its what happens when we deliberately regulate ourselves into not allowing other options.

There is a pretty crazy amount of "density" in well bit, low rise structures - though actually I dont personally hate on towers as a concept.

Also, i would like to highlight that a very small portion of people are living in newly built homes, and only a small portion are really able to make meaningful design impact. Most just buy the builder-grade suburban model home. The idea that suburban single family homes are some design panacae is just wrong.

It sounds like one of the members of YMCA is a dipshit who insists it is not a gay anthem, and has been able to legally take the rights to the song and YMCA from the original members.

So they move them back 100 feet.

...no, they won't know for a few hundred years due to the actual speed of light and vast distances of space.

Eh, even in "the real world" we still encounter blue wave lengths in the evening. I think it is a matter or reduction (aka not shoving a largely blue light source in your face) than elimination.

I'd also say, the fundamental point of it (that finite cost in life is worth the chance at infinite reward or avoiding infinite punishment) is pretty abysmal morally. Pretty easy to justify atrocities for any concept of God that way as a rational approach to life.

This is really the primary death knell for the argument. Yes, there billions and billions of "god" variations - but at least believing in one might get you a (near-zero) better chance at a decent afterlife.

...until you realize the category of "Gods who dont want your worship".