Yea but they won't actually let go of Chromium/Blink. It will get rolled into some Mozilla-like shit org that will be all ex-Googlers getting paid Mozilla-level money and moving ahead with removing all the parts of the API that allow for request (advert) blocking.
Microsoft is still one of the top 10 tech companies a decade plus from its anti-trust case. (while Intel is crashing and burning). CIA-backed Google will somehow find a way to use this to get multiple powerful entities.
I've never really understood Jaguars even before this line of adverts. They always seemed overrated. Unless you were really tied to that look, or really wanted the little cat statue on your hood, I feel like there were a lot of better options for the same power/performance or even luxury options. Their resale values kinda suck too, and the newer style kinda screams "Affordable Maserati" :blobcatshrug:
The Creator of the Universe ... in your own head cannon. The one where he/she/it is good and the best representation of the ideal of what people hope all of humanity's best can be.
The Christians Jesus tells people to sell all they have and give everything to the poor, and to touch the sick and diseased. The reality of doing this is impossible and impractical for normal humans, but our spiritual messiahs are the embodiment of the idealistic myth; the impossible we can never be (nor should we ever be, because implementing such an ideal would either stall or break society. The ideal is really a luxury belief.)
A luxury belief is one that seems like a great to those who are well of as a way of improving the lives of those who aren't well off, but the actual implementation is counter-intuitively destructive to the people they think they're helping. Example: Defund the police.
Sell everything and give it to the poor. Seems like a great idea, right? If everyone would do that, everyone would have enough. But there is the Tragedy of the Commons. What if you earned what you built, and the poor do not?
I think most of what people consider Christ's teachings today approach those luxury beliefs. They were tempered with a moral code and feeling indebted to the grace of God, so they were very powerful in moving society forward. But the Christianity of today would be unrecognizable to the Christianity of 150 or 200 AD.
Constantine's solidification of our modern Christian doctrines under Catholicism have been an incredible moral code (Rome threw out Gnosticism, confusing creation myths, other fragmented gospels; simplifying things into modern Essenian/Paulian Christianity). But people are no longer comfortable with the idea of blood sacrifices. They want to expand inclusiveness while disregarding the moral constraints. Without the moral constraints, why would you even need grace.
Old evangelicals and reformed may not like this move to progressiveness in the Church, but it is literally the next logical expansion of the current Christian mythos.
I feel like there's some assumed knowledge there. Who is saying this? The family? You could believe them, and they could be telling the truth, and you could help them. They get on their feet and on their way and everyone is better.
They could be lying and slit you and your family's throats while you're asleep and take everything and run.
They could be telling the truth, but the cartel kills you for harboring them.
The chances of the first option are much lower than the other two.
I no longer give money to anyone on the street who asks, because previous volunteer work with social workers, and my own interaction with the homeless, leads me to believe the vast majority of them are scammers and shitty. I'm not going out of my way to determine which ones are "the good ones." That's what church outreaches are for. People who really need help will find it with people who deal with their type daily. Those organizations also have the experience to discern who isn't going to put in the work and just go back to their meth addiction.
If you read about most people who make it past 100 (centennials) you'll fine people who just eat fish and chips or who don't exercise other than walking or short bike rides or who smoke. Meanwhile most marathon runners don't make it to 80 (heavy intake and burn of energy reduces your lifespan a bit).
Living to 100 is probably pure genetic lottery. There's nothing you can do to get you there, and there probably aren't a lot of them because there's zero evolutionary pressure that benefits humans for living that long.
I think SSRIs are in the range of totally worthless to causing way more problems than they're suppose to solve. They should have fallen out of use decades ago.
At the same time, one of my best friends needs an anti-psychotic. One pill allows him to keep a job, keep his friends, be a functional member of society and not have the sheriff called on him. He was off his meds for a few months and it was not a fun time. He fully apologized to everyone; defending nothing of what he did. He remembered doing all of it and felt terrible for being off his gourd.
So yea, I agree. Throwing everything out can be a disaster. We don't have any real informed choice or consent for what does work, why it works and what doesn't.
There's been a lot of propaganda too that supports waste products being dumped into our food supply. People really believe putting Fluoride salts (industrial waste products) somehow strengthens teeth. I knew one guy who even said it was the cheapest thing we could do for poor kids dental health.
But the trouble is, those people who have been taught to believe the religion of fluoride will not be willing to even entertain the idea they could be wrong, and Orange Fascists + Scratchy Voice Anti-Vaxer supporting the idea that maybe we shouldn't be putting medication directly in the water supply just re-enforces that religious belief that they are the ones who are trying to kill us all ... :blobcatgooglyshrug:
We just had a "fair" election (excluding the parties having their private little selection process) ... makes me wonder if the powers-that-be (mix of the technocratic class and intelligence class) will someone convince the "left" to want digital IDs .. to stop Orange Fascism™ or something. Could be a possibility.
I haven't really read into the supposed Trump getting rid of income tax. Seems like a ridiculous promise (taxes are controlled by the legislature, not the executive), but I haven't read the actual quotes. I could see that though: not taxes but programmable money. It would let gooberment control the supply of money under some new modern monetary nonsense, eliminating the need for "taxes," (taxes = mandated faith in the system) in their current form.
The deal is, no bank wants a public/gooberment controlled coin. The Federal Reserve is extremely secretive and yet that's considered TOO PUBLIC for most banks. (EU central banks are even more secretive!) Banks would rather have private digital coins they control with even less oversight.
You would need a liquid that would be able to do the same thing, but at the temperature of a high powered LED .... and not be toxic to clean up if it breaks.