You don’t see the overlapping appeal? It’s about authenticity - not policy. Bernie is as authentic as they come. If he’s not running, the Libertarian party is a natural second choice - you have to be pretty sure of yourself to stand on a debate stage and argue for letting people die in the street. Trump had that same energy in this last campaign, so in hindsight I’m not surprised that he won over these people.

I get the impression that Harris plans to drag out the war in Ukraine with continued US support while Trump plans to end it quickly by withholding support. That’s a consequential difference as far as I’m concerned. If Trump were in charge now I expect we’d already be at war with Iran. Remember when he had Soleimani killed in 2020? I don’t think he’d be nearly as reluctant about supporting Israel if he were in charge. I agree that Taiwan is a powder keg, but I’m not sure what we should be doing differently there - curious what you’re getting at there.

Isn’t Trump like super isolationist? Ask a Ukrainian who they prefer to win and I think they’ll have a pretty consistent answer.

I think I’m just sensitive because I’m pro-choice but constantly get painted as heartless and uncaring by my pro-life family. Viable or not, I feel something for these unborn things, just like my family - the only difference is that I don’t prioritize my feelings over the rights of other people, nor do I shy away from the fact that abortions can be necessary and merciful. I am an ally in this fight, but if you’re dismissing the miracle of life as nothing more than a medical condition, you’re not helping the cause - to some extent you’re a liability to those of us trying to actually win people over.

I don’t know why but “person” in quotations just rubs me the wrong way. I don’t think we have to dismiss the value of an unborn life in order to support abortion - they’re not mutually exclusive. In this case I would argue that there were two tragedies, one committed by “God” and the other by the state of Texas.

I do find it interesting that the “actual” employment rate was 7% higher in 2000 than it is now. I get that we have an older population now, and proportionally more retirees as a result, but isn’t that relevant to our economic health? Rather than patting ourselves on the back for doing a good job despite an aging population, shouldn’t we be talking about how to turn this trend around? Italy, Japan, and China are about a generation ahead of us on this issue, and they’re totally freaking out - maybe we should too.

Private insurance used to offer flood insurance like 100 years ago, but to stay in business they had to raise premiums to a point where no one could realistically afford it (which is to say that living in a flood zone is not financially feasible for most people). The government had to step in with their own flood insurance program, which was tied to regulation intending to minimize the risk of flooding in at-risk zones so that premiums could remain affordable. Even these measures haven’t been sufficient to keep the program from running out of money, and we’ve been subsidizing it with taxpayer bailouts to keep it afloat.

All this is to say that private insurance is literally incapable of insuring against flood damage, so you can’t blame them for any of this. If you want to blame someone, blame Trump for rolling back standards that would have allowed FEMA to consider climate change in their risk models.

I’m torn. If our country ever goes back to normal, I’d love to be able to show my grandkids a Trump Bible 50 years from now. I like to think that they’d be shocked by the audacity of it - by the fact that a guy peddled something so blasphemous and still locked up the religious vote. But I know Trump is probably getting royalties on the sale, so I guess they’ll just have to take my word for it.

They fact-checked constantly during the first half, which was a huge improvement over former debates. Honestly I thought this was better moderated than any previous debate involving Trump.

Harris campaign requested unmuted mics - it was Trump’s team that was worried about him making an ass of himself with interruptions. With that in mind they might be letting him talk because it’s what Harris wanted in the first place.

I’m torn on this issue. I want the sort of gun control that you’re describing, but I really don’t know if it would be constitutional, and defying the constitution is a slippery slope that could cause more harm than even gun violence. The problem in my view is the second amendment itself - it’s vague, outdated, and in desperate need of clarification. The fact that it deals with possession of technology but hasn’t been updated in 250 years is insane.

I’m with anyone calling for gun control, but we really ought to be demanding constitutional revision to address this issue.

A lot of people are doing work that can be automated in part by AI, and there’s a good chance that they’ll lose their jobs in the next few years if they can’t figure out how to incorporate it into their workflow. Some people are indeed out of the workforce or in industries that are safe from AI, but that doesn’t invalidate the hype for the rest of us.

This is like saying that automobiles are overhyped because they can’t drive themselves. When I code up a new algorithm at work, I’m spending an hour or two whiteboarding my ideas, then the rest of the day coding it up. AI can’t design the algorithm for me, but if I can describe it in English, it can do the tedious work of writing the code. If you’re just using AI as a Google replacement, you’re missing the bigger picture.

My understanding is that there was no hard evidence and the witness did not wish to testify, so this was a plea deal to make him confess and give the victim closure. Still feels wrong given that he did confess, but if the alternative was no probation I guess this is better than nothing.

For thousands of years the ruling class has tolerated the rest of us because they needed us for labor and protection. We’re approaching the first time in human history where this may no longer be the case. If any of us are invited to the AI utopia, I suspect it will only be to worship those who control it. I’m not sure what utility we’ll have to offer beyond that. I doubt they’ll keep us around just to collect UBI checks.

I tend to gravitate towards female characters in single player games and I ask myself this same question a lot. The weird thing is that I have no gender preference when my options are more limited - it’s only when I’m being asked to customize my appearance. With male characters I never really know what I’m looking for - usually what looks right is what looks familiar. Maybe I’ll be scrolling through hair options, find something that reminds me of Aragorn, and before I know it that’s who I’m roleplaying. With a female character it’s easier for me to resist these influences and make someone original because I can rely on my own preferences to tell me what looks right. I’ll still play male characters if I have a specific influence in mind, but otherwise I find myself much more likely to actually finish a game as a female PC.

Jamie Foxx in Django Unchained. I don’t know if I can articulate exactly why he felt miscast, but every time they had a less recognizable actor on the screen I couldn’t help but wonder how they would look in the leading role, and every time I found myself wishing I was watching that movie instead.

I was against drilling until Russia invaded Ukraine. Russia produces 10% of the global oil supply, so we can’t really sanction them without impacting the global economy. We’ve been draining our strategic petroleum reserves since the war started, and while we might have enough saved up to get through the current crisis, I wouldn’t blame the white house for wanting to increase domestic supply as a contingency - especially if this turns out to be just the first domino in a global conflict.

Why would a player drawn to spellcasters prefer weapon attacks over cantrips? I think that’s the question we need to focus on.

Are they having trouble finding spells that fit the theme of their character? If so, maybe they’d benefit from looking at a wider range of source books. You can also remind them that they can “reflavor” their spells to better fit their character.

Is it utility magic that draws them to spellcasters? Are they even choosing offensive spells to begin with? If not, maybe you can help them out with a magic item - something to guarantee that they have access to a spell or two that would benefit the party. You could also shift some of the danger towards non-combat encounters to give their spells more value. For what it’s worth I don’t think there’s anything wrong with utility-focused characters - they just tend not to shine as much in one-shots. Maybe if they knew more about the adventure ahead of time, they could better cater their character to the situations they’re likely to face.

Are they overwhelmed by their character sheet? If so, playing short campaigns starting from level 1 might help to ease them into their class abilities. Spell cards might also be helpful if you’re playing tabletop.

It’s certainly possible that Meta has a plan to destroy the fediverse with Threads, but I wouldn’t dismiss the possibility that they’re just doing this because they can. If their plan was to take over the fediverse from within, and that plan hinged on instances not defederating out of caution, then it’s off to a poor start. I might just be totally naive but this feels more like them testing the water by opening their doors to the fediverse - I don’t know if they know what happens next.