GreyEyedGhost

One of the definitions of conservative is cautious or restrained. How is not spending money in a risky way not conservative? How is making choices based on evidence from other experiences not conservative? How is not spending money and letting physical and social structures that are serving you well decay conservative?

You need to get your hearing checked.

As someone who has used the term before.

Social liberal: I think you should be able to do whatever you want in your personal life, even if it harms yourself. I'm willing to negotiate with harming consenting adults while recognizing the possibility, even likelihood, of an imbalance of power making it difficult to properly give consent, or for it to be recognized by the public at large, e.g., maybe Amazon workers aren't really okay with peeing in bottles because they don't have enough time or facilities for bathroom breaks, just because they accepted the job. Doing things that harm those you have guardianship over is not acceptable because they are not in a position to give consent.

Fiscal conservative: I want money in the public trust to be spent effectively. This doesn't mean I want less taxes, I'm in fact okay with more. A city near me has 30% of its budget dedicated to police services, yet we have some of the highest violent crime in Canada. The simple fact is, a lot of crime is driven by poverty and lack of opportunity. So why are we paying to catch and jail poor people with no skills who are trying to survive and not paying for skills training, robust childhood education, and at least minimal supports so people don't have to be desperate enough to risk their lives and mine so they can survive? It doesn't make sense and there's no indication it's working. FYI, school meal programs tend to help the local economy to the tune of about $7 for every $1 you spend on them. That sounds terribly fiscally responsible to me...

Aww, you made me think of Slashdot!

Fair enough, thanks for the reminder.

I never took it as an accusation, more of an insult. I honestly don't remember if he doubled down or not, but I do seem to recall he backed off after threats to sue. Dangerous insult to use. - if you call someone an asshole, it's pretty clear it's hyperbole. Pedophile, not so much.

I'm curious, too. I just don't see a lot of right-wing voters buying Tesla to own the libs.

The 1Y is up, but a LOT of gains have been lost in the last month or two.

Here you go.

Yeah, this is kind of where I am. If I was an MET and someone asked my profession in a casual conversation, I might well say engineer. If it was anything more significant or official, or the person was aware of the field enough to know the difference, I'd go with MET. Running for office definitely falls in the second category.

If you want to be effective, you need to drift south as much as you drift north to get adequate coverage - still a circular orbit, just tilted off the equator. This causes a real problem, because northern Europe is far enough north that you have to pretty much cover the whole world, anyway. Also, the more you move from the equator, the more bands of satellites you will need to have coverage at all times. The other part in the Starlink system is the requirement for some number of base stations to connect to the internet backbones. Further iterations are reducing this need, but it will never be 0.

What this means is, it would be cheaper for Brazil or the Middle East to have local satellite internet than it is for Europe, China, or Australia. In fact, if Europe had a low-orbit satellite internet offering, it would be more cost effective to sell it worldwide because they would be close to that just covering their own needs. Which is also the position Starlink has chosen to be in.

Chickens are surprisingly effective as far as meat animals go.