And we do. It seems silly to hold their wishes in such high regard compared to our own anyway though, we know more about how our system works in practice than they did when thinking of it after all, both because things dont often go completely as planned and we have the actual experience of using the result for a significant time, and because the system has been already changed in various ways already over that time.

We don't have to stick with the original design, the founders were in no way perfect

Not hard to find when it's hogging so much space at the top of the map

-claims to be against the US sending weapons to Isreal while they're conducting a genocide

-works to ensure the election of a man who's prior history of presiding over foreign policy towards Isreal proves that he would support them in this even more than the present administration.

Make it make sense.

Ah yes, because if a politician could control the weather, of course the thing they'd do with it is attack several swing states right before the election /s

I've never done this because my cutting board is wood and my dishwasher too small to fit it, but are you not supposed to dishwash bamboo? Never heard of this

Plot twist: 50% of each individual patient survives. Hope you get lucky with which organs make it

The issue there is the cause and timescale. Waste heat from energy use isn't what is causing our current climate change, it's the effect of greenhouse gas emissions on the energy absorbed from sunlight. They're related in that the greenhouse gas emissions are generally waste products too, but they're different physical problems that seem equivalent because they have same ultimate consequence, so they shouldn't be taken as having identical solutions. Not that degrowth wouldn't be a way to solve our current issues too, but it's not the only way to, and the point where it becomes such because we reach the physical limits of the planet is a long way off. In the meantime, it has a lot of downsides to consider vs the various other ways to deal with the current problem.

It also seems to me that the circumstances implied don't seem the most likely? Like, we're working on space exploration and development right now, it's still early stages, but given another thousand years it would be strange for it to not go anywhere. It's not even like we'd need to stop building new energy using things in a few hundred years (which, given the current trends in population growth, we might I suppose), we literally just have to spread the things out rather than just piling more and more onto a single planet.

Sounds like this guy needs to back where he came from, and back where he was before he came there too, and so on and so forth until he ends up back at elementary school history class.

Honestly I suspect it would do the opposite, Lemmy is a bit of a echo chamber and while users here heavily skew towards favoring Palestine in this, or at least condemning what Isreal is and honestly has long been doing to them, the US as a whole, even the base of the democratic party, has long been at least mildly friendly towards Isreal, and a large fraction will see Hamas's attack as justifying Isreali action. It's a bit of a damned if you do, damned if you don't situation for the dems I think where their current path angers progressives on the left, and actively sanctioning Isreal would probably anger the more center-right side of the party, and they need both to turn out to win. They probably figure that at the end of the day, the left either is mostly younger people that don't vote as reliably, or will bite their tongues and vote for them, because, well, if you're given only two possible futures, both evil, and a choice between them, one has a moral obligation to choose the lesser evil, no matter how evil that lesser is, just because by definition, the greater evil is worse. But the center-right, they probably figure, probably don't care about what is happening as much, and will feel much less uncomfortable about just voting for the republicans instead if the dem candidate doesn't do what they want.

That being said, it doesn't really much matter, ethically, if not helping kill tens of thousands of innocent people makes it slightly harder to win political power for yourself, it's still a pretty horrible excuse. Nobody sitting in a jury would let someone go free if they were accused of being an accomplice to a murder, if that accomplice's defense was "well, I'm running for mayor, and if I didn't help the murderer, his friends probably won't vote for me". Like I get that Kamala isn't really calling the shots on that, being only vice president currently, but she doesn't seem like she intends to change how Biden has handled the situation much.

Don't get me wrong, I am voting for her, I'm not one of those people that thinks that it is somehow noble to just let the greater evil win if it means not taking an action that helps the lesser evil beat it, I think that the going for the best outcome plausibly available is always the right thing to do and that doing the reverse because "well my hands are clean" is a misguided and self centered way to do ethics, but like damn people (to which I mean the people that actually side with Isreal in this, and the DNC I guess, not they they see my tired internet ranting), just because the other option is as close as the country has come in a century to "literally Hitler" does not mean that you have to emulate Churchill refusing to help the Bengalis.

Honestly I get frustrated when people (mostly my extended family admittedly) take from that movie the idea that the message is "dinosaurs are impossible to contain safely and we should never try to somehow recreate one". Like, no, we can make zoos for large, fairly intelligent predators or even bigger herbivores just fine, we do it all the time with things like lions and elephants, dinosaurs arent godzilla or anything. The issue with Jurassic park was that it was run by cheapskates that wanted to get something done fast on a budget without concern for doing it right. It would be like making a movie about the Oceangate disaster and having people conclude the moral of the story was "You shouldnt want to build a submarine because humans arent meant to go down there and it will inevitably go badly" rather than "You should spend the money to build your submarine the right way"