Honestly the newest version of them does look kind of cool, though maybe it’ll get stale once they’re like 10 years old and everywhere.

That’s not what that seems to say at all. It doesn’t even look like it says “if we do nothing, we can’t grow these crops anymore”. It seems to be specifically about stratospheric aerosol injection (a specific geoengineering technique that we haven’t even committed to trying as yet), and suggests that if you use it to keep global temperatures stable, there can still be changes in where these crops can grow because changes to things like rainfall and humidity. I’ve not read the entire thing but from a glance at it’s conclusions, their simulations suggest that the crops would remain economically important to their growing regions under all their simulations, just with the viable amount that can be grown and the specific areas for doing it changed per region, and that using SAI to offset warming doesn’t simply result in the same yields as not having the warming would have the way one might otherwise expect.

Microbes are still made of chemicals, it’s just different chemicals

At some point the smear campaigns go from frustrating to somehow funny.

“Ah yes, the “working people need to be able to afford housing and food and transportation” guy. He’s the literal reincarnation of the entire Soviet Union. Don’t ask us to explain how, something something socialism.”

The moral justification for upending people’s lives or worse based on the circumstances of their birth and what paperwork they’ve been able to complete?

Feel like God would have fit this sentiment better. There’s a decent amount of historical evidence for Jesus himself to my understanding (not the supernatural stuff attributed to him so much, but moreso that there was a guy the various stories were based off of). But an actual benevolent diety would probably make for a more pleasant world than what we have to deal with, probably why so many people care so strongly about the idea and want to believe it I’d imagine.

That’s another take of mine tbh, if clothes hold obnoxiously visible wrinkles, the fabric is too stiff to be comfortable in my view anyway. I try to avoid buying and wearing anything that needs to be ironed if I can get away with it.

If it isn’t sweet to you, you’re making it wrong. As some of the other commenters have said, assuming you’re talking about Southern style sweet tea, the stuff uses so much sugar that it will not dissolve unless it’s added while the water is still hot, like 1 or 2 cups of sugar per gallon of tea was what my family used growing up, but some places will literally cram in double the sugar content of coca cola from what I’ve heard. Sweetener packets just ain’t gonna cut it.

That being said, while I grew up with and love the stuff (though try to drink it only occationally and make it with sucralose now, because it’s a truly ridiculous amount of sugar to consume as one’s main beverage), I think you’ll find your view less unpopular than you think, except among Americans (especially southerners). I remember being surprised to learn growing up from some foreign classmates that it’s considered something of an acquired taste, if you didn’t grow up with it, there’s a pretty decent chance you won’t like it, to my understanding.

Mine doesn’t even have a detergent door, just a divot to fill with powder before closing. It’s one of those countertop ones though, so I guess the available space and complexity was a bit limited.

Folding laundry is a complete waste of time and effort. If it’s been through the wash it’s clean, it’s not going to be any cleaner just because you spent half an hour doing laundry origami.

I don’t eat meat at all anymore, but growing up, whenever we had steaks I would always prefer it well done. It wasn’t really that I enjoyed it that way though, just that I did not like the flavor and texture of steak even cooked perfectly, my father did and kept making me eat it, and cooking it to a crisp and then covering it with ketchup and paprika was a way to make it not taste like steak anymore.

It even kinda looks like a soft serve ice cream blob or something

I think the idea is that you don’t really have a true ecosystem at that point. The idea basically contemplates turning the entire biosphere into something more like a managed garden than a wild space. Which is one of the reasons I brought up being nowhere near the technology required among other things, because to give the idea more than idle speculation, you’d essentially have to be able to artificially run the whole planet’s life support system without requiring a functional ecology to do it for you.

I mean, if one has an ethical issue with animal death in general, or at least for the fairly intelligent ones, it makes sense. It’s just the kind of position that we have nowhere near the technological capacity or infrastructure to do anything about, so it wouldn’t really come up most of the time.

Thought the guy was working for the Romans maybe?

and not to mention, the tools required to create it (maybe not the best examples, but still) are already in the possession of virtually everybody.

Ive heard nice things about Amsterdam, though there’s the obvious caveat that the impression the internet gives of a place is rarely an accurate picture of how a place actually is.

I mean, theres no way to really know what the purpose of the sim is, if youre in a sim, except for that it probably isnt one that conflicts with whatever you see. It doesnt have to be an experiment.

Mind, I dont think the universe is a sim, but it seems to me that to truly prove that it cant be the case, there have to be absolutely no scenarios where being in a sim is consistent with what you experience. And there’s probably a potential purpose that some entity might have to justify any scenario that can be constructed, especially given that the simulator need not be human and therefore might have completely alien motivations.

I may be an optimist in some ways, but I honestly expect civilization will persist through “all this”. Though of course, that isn’t really much comfort considering that doesn’t mean that it won’t absolutely suck for the people within it all.

It seems to me that it should be impossible to truly prove that the universe isnt a simulation. If you lived in a simulation, then the simulator theoretically can control everything that you experience, to include things like the activity of your own neurons and whatever else plays a role in your thinking. As such, they can, if they wish, make you believe that you have seen something that is inconsistent with a simulation, even if you have not, make you believe that something you did see is inconsistent with one even if it isnt, or cause you to believe that a certain chain of logic must rule out a simulation even though it doesnt. As such, there is a subset of hypothetical simulated worlds in which you are absolutely but falsely convinced that simulation is disproven. How can you tell the difference between one of these and a “real” world where you really have disproved simulation?