FriendOfDeSoto

How can anyone answer this unless you vaguely doxx yourself?

I see your bullshit and raise you horse manure. Speaking from an administrative point out view, it is indeed harder to run a program like that spread out over a much larger area with a much larger population to deal with. A complication in the US is also in differing state laws. This probably wouldn't work EU-wide either.

Also Finland didn't start from a large pool of homeless people due to mental illness or medical bankruptcies because there were other social safety nets spun before this one to catch a lot of the people before they became homeless.

Blame the US for not trying. I do too. But "economies of scale" are not going to help a program that for it to run well cannot be run like a business.

It's much harder to get large swaths of the public addicted to opioids due to pesky red tape from Brussels. And there are far fewer veterans you can abandon to their battle PTSD in tent camps.

I read about a Finnish initiative to just get everyone they could find on the streets of Helsinki without an abode into apartments, give them money, and help them sort out their lives and get them into jobs wherever possible. That's socialism bordering on communism to American ears. That's quite lefty even by European standards, sadly.

In America's defense it's easier to do in a country of 5 million people than in one of 340 million. That's not a reason not to try though.

It's been a decade since I had to worry about such things. I remember reading that breast milk is - when available and plentiful - the preferred method. Formula is always second best. But this is a numbers game and I think the lab coats don't say formula child will suffer consequence A as a result. It's always there is a 5% higher chance of catching this or that (and I pulled that number out of thin air). But this is the margins I think I read about when it mattered.

Child #1 got supplemented with formula 60/40 at first; child #2 never had formula. Child #2 has spent more time in pediatricians' waiting rooms. It's a numbers game where you can do everything "right" and still not "win." Big air quotes on those terms.

If you are a new parent or are about to become one and you're reading this thread and you're freaking out: please take a deep breath. You'll figure this out.

I heard that there are people who hate Chinese tourists... so is this actually gonna backfire?

I've been to a few touristy spots in my life and it is my experience that it is a fairly recent development that Chinese tourists have nudged American ones from the top spot in the annoying tourists category. So regardless which group you'll pretend to be from, people will probably still find you annoying.

I totally get why you would want to pretend you're not American these days to avoid questions about the orange, ICE, and the subtleties of international law. Do what feels right and works. I wouldn't go as far as faking an accent but I wouldn't hold it against you necessarily.

With as much detail as you require, i.e. what they wear in bed at night, this question is nearly impossible to answer. As there is not a single person alive that has observed all rich people while they're catching some zzz's. It also hinges on the definition of rich.

Logically, the answer to your question is probably no. There will be a few rich people who wear non-designer clothes. But in my estimation they will be a minority. If you have the means, the show-off appeal or the perceived higher quality of the more expensive stuff is probably enough to fill your wardrobe over time. Also, rich people get a lot of shit for free.

What they are saying ≠ what they are doing. I'm my book, this is a half-assed, poorly thought through, unadvised military campaign. Trying to grasp it with logic is as useless as an ashtray on a motorbike.

After 9/11 W was flown around a long time in Air Force One to keep him secure. After just having their old dear leader blown up, it's highly likely they have stepped up security on junior. So junior will be moved around or hidden in bunkers and caves or moved around between various bunkers and caves, thus making a hit harder.

I don't think the author likes mastodon dot social...

I couldn't get through all of this blog post because it's repeating the same point 500 times. I get the theoretical threat scenario they are painting; what's missing are the receipts. Is moderation on that instance actually getting worse? Have we talked with admins on the record how they don't dare defederate from that alleged wretched hive of scum and villainy? And two other angles are missing: (1) a name brand instance might be a good starting point on the fediverse. It's still better than Xwitter. And (2) people are not donating enough to their instances, who are then run on dedication and held together by duct tape. The fear of having one's instance shut down because the admin is out of money and duct tape makes people gravitate towards the bigger instances.

I'm not opposed to recommending people to find other, smaller instances - that is a good idea. It's just this blog post reads more like a hit piece.

... apparently a lot of English people have at least 25% Scandinavian DNA,...

In the 9th century the Vikings invaded and occupied a huge chunk of England (mostly). They blended in with the Anglo Saxons after a while, who, btw, also originally came from Northern Europe.

A bunch of Vikings also went to set up shop in Normandy, France. That sounds very French today but when you look at it, it sounds surprisingly like "northman"-dy. These Normans also invaded England in the 11th century, stayed, and fucked around like their Viking cousins of old.

We are all blends of DNA. People moved around, also to North America. Including people from the Iberian peninsula. That's why it shouldn't be that inexplicable that you have some of their DNA in yours.

If it were faked, the Soviets would have had a field day. They didn't. If all the other facts didn't work, I find that most convincing. The nemesis had to accept it begrudgingly.

Between the 70s and today, the motivations for moon landings have changed. Back then: fuck the commies, we go first, and science. Turns out the moon isn't that interesting to continue sending people there. Rocks and dust, yawn. Not worth the ROI. The reason why there is renewed interest now is because people think realistically they can build a base on the moon. That was science fiction in 1969.

For your own mental health, give yourself a time frame and if they still think it's fake allow yourself to let it go. Chances are they don't want to be convinced and you have to let nature take its course and hope the seed of doubt you have planted comes to life and blossoms.

Broad strokes explanations:

1. USA likes Israel, a lot for some reason

The US like many other countries support the existence of the Jewish state. That's a direct result of the Shoah. And then it got more complicated real fast. Wars, annexing the west bank, aggressive settlement and displacing the people who have lived there for ages, the Gaza wars, etc. - it makes it impossible to support it all.

2. "Israel" attacks Iran. This whole thing is being done with the USA's airplanes though.

No quotation marks necessary; this is a joint operation from everything I've read. The US has the biggest and most well equipped military force on this planet and does a lot of the heavy lifting.

Israel has a lot to fear from Iran. Iran has been a dick and has strong missile capabilities that they do not hesitate to launch at Israel, possibly overpowering their air defenses. Iran has funded and equipped lots of militias fighting Israel, like Hezbollah in Gaza.

Upon the mullah revolution, Iranians stormed the US embassy in Teheran, killed people and held another bunch hostage. The US became the #1 enemy of the Iranian regime. Between Israel and the US there is no love lost for the Iranian regime.

• What's the logic here? Not just the conspiracy.

There is continued unrest in the country; the majority of the Iranian people are fed up with their government. The timing is right in so many ways. A weakened Iran, leaders who dgaf about international law, the need for the US and Israeli leaders to score a win. Also, elections held while at war have a tendency to cement the incumbents in power.

But why now?

Israel's Netanyahu is under pressure for corruption and the war in Gaza. 47 is under pressure with failing approval ratings, Epstein, etc. A successful military operation can help both leaders improve their image for upcoming elections.

Why at all? Is Israel gaining something that I'm not seeing? Destabilization the main goal? What's the USA gaining here?

The world will be better without an Islamist authoritarian government in Iran. Israel and the US have already destroyed Iran's nuclear weapons ambitions last year. The regime is on the ropes with unrest in the country. Israel is getting more secure if the mullahs fall. Unless you are a lover of Islamist fundamentalism or a stern believer in international law, there is nobody who is rooting for these bastards to stay in power.

Iran is also an enemy of the Saudis, another close ally of the US. The calculus would be that a newly liberal Iran, maybe even democratized, would be a stabilizing factor in that region.

The biggest problem is that since Germany in 1945 no regime change has worked.

Broad strokes, all of this. The whole truth is more verbose and nuanced.

He'll be found guilty in a civil lawsuit and then much later gets attested in Vegas while trying to get back some of his memorabilia at gunpoint. For which he will be getting an unusually high sentence. All the while he will write books claiming he will find the guy who really did it.