Cats will probably be okay. Their wild cousins are native to desert climates.

So would the collapse of civilization. Neither counts as a win for humanity.

Really should have gone with 8 days.

You’re talking about the guy who said he’d use the notwithstanding clause? Sure, maybe you like the idea of longer sentences for criminals, but I would still question whether you should love that more than respecting the constitution.

The charts seem to show the time span for each country where the opinions of men and women were fairly similar and how they’ve diverged since. Some countries started diverging more recently than others.

I imagine you actually could count their ruling as it’s an original work, based on research from other papers. Which I find kind of funny, because that would mess up so many professors…

He’s literally said he will enact laws that will require using the notwithstanding clause to be upheld. Just one of many articles about it.

Weak and unimaginative.

Now, I get the appeal to authority, and the arguments against it. Obviously they wanted the cachet of the Nobel name for their economics prize, but economists often worry about the wrong thing. Yes, stagnant capital is bad for the economy, and a stagnant economy is bad for society, but having a vibrant economy doesn’t necessarily mean society is benefiting. Most economists don’t worry too much about that, and many businesses don’t, either. And that’s where the problems come in.

While companies are going about making profits, they rarely worry about the world or society they operate in. This is why they will happily pollute the planet, underpay their employees, or produce goods and services that maximize profits rather than better suit their customers’, and society’s, needs. Hence, fossil fuel companies desperately hanging onto their current profit model while storms rage and cities flood, or light bulbs being made to burn out (or, in the case of LEDs, just a certain component so they can be easily ‘recycled’). And this is where society needs to have strong government to step in and curb the ravenous hunger of capitalism and direct that energy in ways that help society.

So, for good or ill, more housing needs to be built, even if that means housing prices are stagnant or even drop. Food has to be affordable, or people with less income need to be supported so they aren’t starving. People need to be educated well, so they don’t make imprudent choices and have better opportunities in life. Healthcare needs to be accessible, so society is happier, healthier, and can also further drive that economy.

Keep capitalism for what it is good for (or find a way to replace it with something better, preferably without burning civilization down), which is finding innovative ways to get things done, and looking for new and interesting things to make society better. And use government to set limits and direction, such as incentivizing needed housing that isn’t profitable.

Nothing says self-sufficient like having to bring in troops from other countries.

Hungary is no longer listed as a member of the IDU. There appears to be no press release about that change. Whatever the reason, this puts a spotlight on their motives or competence.

I’m pretty sure you can’t live to retirement eating boiled steak and kidney pie. Remember, even fish and chips is an imported food. Their national beverage comes from halfway across the world. I’m pretty sure the only reason the British did so much conquering is because anything was better than staying home. And, of course, eating any of these things doesn’t preclude you from being a bigot. Bigots aren’t often known for their critical thinking skills.

The picture’s been updated, I guess they realized their mistake.

I personally don’t get expecting someone to put his livelihood on the line to say out loud what people want to hear. If Markiplier’s lack of endorsement of piracy is what was going to stop you from pirating, I don’t know what to say. If it’s what it takes to make you stop supporting him, that’s your choice.

For me, it sounds like he is saying, “My corporate overlords want me to say that piracy isn’t the option. Heck, I don’t know how it works, but it isn’t too hard…uh…but I know only a little about it. They’re standing behind me, aren’t they?” I like him well enough, but have only watched his channel on other people’s devices. If he was more senior, he might say different things, not unlike some developer studio leaders. He might not, hard to say. It won’t have any bearing one way or another on my actions.

I have a coworker that says we need more CO2 in the atmosphere. 🙄

So what’s your plan to get people to exercise 150 minutes per week in the current adult generation? This would reasonably cost almost nothing and dramatically reduces your risk for diabetes, yet, 60% of Canadians are overweight or obese. I don’t imagine reducing their access to medical services is going to change that, besides making them die faster, yet that’s what you first proposed.

And as you said, and as I was trying to point out, there are a lot of health risks, and many of them are entirely within their power to change.

Make it a referendum, but everyone who is engaging in an activity that risks their health has to vote against removing treatment for lifestyle diseases, and you’ll be at 80% before the ballots are printed. Most people think their poor lifestyle choices aren’t that big of a problem, just everyone else’s.

I’m going to say this real slow one last time. Then promote funding for helping people to change their lifestyle rather than removing healthcare. Another wildly inconceivable idea is to add funding to healthcare, rather than cut it every year. Yes, taxes may have to increase, yes, people will call that socialism, and yes, quality of life will go up for most people, without even requiring those you find morally reprehensible to die sooner than necessary.

So, have you been to a doctor? When you walk in with high blood pressure, do you think they don’t mention reducing your weight, sodium, and cholesterol? Some people follow that advice, some don’t. Some don’t know how to achieve that.

A lot of the things you talk about already happen, at the most superficial level. It isn’t working. But, much like drug addiction, people would rather vilify those who are so weak as to succumb to addiction (or overeating) rather than providing the resources to help them beyond a handy little pamphlet telling them everything they already know.

But that isn’t what you started with advocating. Rather than advocating better resources to help people deal with the causes, you promoted the idea of removing help treating their symptoms if they didn’t meet your criteria of trying enough to fix the underlying causes, of what I imagine are your personal pet peeves.

…and if they didn’t make the right choices, they can suffer more and die sooner. Good choices, there.