That's roughly what I had in mind when I wrote that comment indeed...
BestBouclettes
That I'm autistic as fuck and no, I'm not angry, I'm overstimulated, understimulated, too cold, too hot, hungry, thirsty, I don't have my glasses on, or anything really.
So I'm learning to be kinder towards myself and go outside of my comfort zone every once in a while, but on my own terms.
Yeah destroying shit is easy, building mostly good, useful, strong and reliable systems is incredibly hard...
What they'll do is they'll ask for subsidies to build power plants, privatise them, sell the power at increasingly extortionate rates and cut maintenance costs to increase their margins and profits.
Possibly.
Basically stay away from highly processed food as much as possible. Try to get as much variety as possible, and eat more fiber, protein and healthy fats than you think is enough. Also, add as many plant based products as possible and cut red meat to a minimum.
I guess it matches Aisha's age in the Qur'an
Yeah but on the other hand, big numbers on a screen.
But you see, it's different because... Reasons.
When you're rich they just let you do it.
It's not that they don't care I think. It's more that the human brain is not very good at understanding and visualising massive things (be it numbers, space, complex systems, etc).
We're really good at gathering and communicating information though, which helps us make sense of the world.
The big problem is that we allow people's opinions to have as much weight as data and facts. So when you have data and facts about climate change presented at the same level as climate denialism, most people don't really see the difference when it comes to the weight of the data vs the opinion of some guy.
It's almost like some people benefit from withholding information, controlling the narrative, and having a public with low critical thinking.
Even a 1 or 2% per trade would bring massive amounts of money, not even trying to make it progressive or anything.
I'm really scared that the "rape without intention" is going to stick around... That would be an absolutely awful precedent.