When that one aired I assumed they were going to genre-shift into dark comedy or slapstick, but they... really, really didn't.
TotallyHuman
Because I didn't want people arguing about current events and the end of the Cold War seemed as good a cutoff as any.
Liquid democracy is a proposed way to do a direct democracy in a large country. It's only been tried on very small scales (Google used it to decide which food to get for their cafeterias), so we don't really know if it would work, but I like the idea.
I'd point out that there are countries which don't have much corruption or governmental malfeasance. Nordic countries tend to score very well on the Corruption Perception Index, and also have good social safety nets and governments that (generally, for the most part) serve the people. They're all small countries, though -- I suspect that politics becomes an increasingly dirty business the more power a country has.
If you haven't already, you might want to look into selectorate theory. It essentially shows not only how the psychopaths at the top stay in power, but also why attempts to reform the system often result in a new crop of rulers who are just as bad or worse than those they replaced. (c.f. Cromwell's revolt, French Revolution, Russian Revolution). A proponent of selectorate theory would argue that the solution is not to remove the psychopaths -- it's to create a system where things in a politician's selfish interest happen to line up with things that benefit the people. It's excellently summed up by this video.
In terms of curtailing corporate power from the top down, studying the history of U.S. antitrust law would be a good place to start. Extra Credits has a good series about it.
One reform method that has worked before is unionization. The vast majority of worker protections came about because of labour action. Unions are a lot weaker than they used to be, but it doesn't have to stay that way. If you can, unionizing your workplace is probably the most impactful action you could take to improve the existing system.
If your tastes are more radical, you could also consider mutual aid societies. A robust one could conceivably Theseus its way into failing institutions, or evolve into a provisional government if everything collapses.
If men are dominant in certain fields, it’s a sign of systematic discrimination against women. If women are dominant in certain fields, then that’s just because men suck at xyz and this is just the natural outcome.
I'm open to having my mind changed, but I think that might actually be true. In cases where men are dominant, we can point to specific discriminatory situations. We can see how hiring committees consist primarily or exclusively of men. We can see how popular depictions of people in [field] are all male. We can note that neurodivergent boys are far more likely to get diagnoses and support than neurodivergent girls. With the exception of certain fields like education and nursing, I can't think of any systemic factors that discriminate against men.
Open-source means that the source code is available for anyone to read. (It's also closely connected to copyleft licenses, which explicitly allow copying and derivative works, but they aren't quite the same.) It's generally very good for security software to be open-source, because it means anyone can see how it works and highlight security flaws, and it makes it much harder for malicious code (i.e. a password manager that sends all your passwords to the creator) to sneak in under the radar.
Uh, what? I'm Canadian, but isn't the Second Amendment a negative right? The government isn't allowed to stop you from carrying a gun. You can agree with that and still think there are reasons an individual might not want to carry a gun.
There's a difference between expressing emotion in general and expecting a random friend to be able to deal with your emotions and help you. Obviously you should help your friends with their emotions, and they should help you with yours, but sometimes, especially if you have a persistent problem, expecting a friend to go over similar emotions frequently (which usually means the friend gets upset too, if they care about you) can be an unfair imposition.
I haven't met any of the "a lot of guys" who don't get this, but I don't really doubt they exist, since both working through emotions and respectfully negotiating boundaries can be difficult.
"Interesting! Tell us, where are these aliens with terrible cybersecurity? We were thinking of conquering you, but now it's pretty clear that there's an easier and wealthier target."
Schindler's List. Humans can be nasty, horrible, utterly evil. It's all too common. But some of us will work to do good. Some of us will push back and do what's right. There is evil in this world, but there is also goodness.
We conclude that the sitting posture is the best position for men with urination problems, e.g. due to an enlarged prostate to urinate in, whereas no difference was found in healthy men
Buried near the bottom. Clickbait headline.
Thank you. This is the answer I was looking for. I understood wings as a means to convert forward airspeed into vertical force, and they are, but I didn't consider that there could be mechanical advantage. (and, of course, I didn't realize that's what I was confused about.)
I don't see it as obvious. If anything it makes it harder for vested interests to have an outsized influence, since there are no traditional politicians to bribe. What flaws do you see that I'm missing?