bss03

Mushroom? In particular, the ones that look most like Smurf houses?

I've dealt with people that made it to adulthood not really understanding that if they have cash in their pocket, but more debt than that, they don't really have money available to spend on frivolous things. Some of them are my friends.

They will be "broke" 5 days of the week, but spend freely from when then cash their paycheck (or get that next payday loan!) until all they have is change.

But, I've been lucky. I got a degree without taking on debt AND the worst CC hole I had to dig myself out of was not even to the limit of one card. I think most people have to ignore student or medical or other debt just to function...

Sorry, maybe I was ambiguous. The violent/revolutionary approaches would be to achieve some sort of climate recovery, which might obviate needing an "exit plan".

There's no acceptable use for something that can only exist by violating the copyright terms for millions of artists.

Credit? You can have my upvote if this isn't "genAI".

Yeah, we not only have to reach net-0, which is a pipe dream with the current leadership / collective will, but we'll need to figure out some method of carbon capture that can actually be net-negative AND deploy it on scales far beyond any sort of "carbon capture" that has been planned, whether their number were sane or just hype to get some of the "pork barrel spending".

I suggest making sure you have an "exit plan" for when it get worse than you'd like, which I expect to be in my lifetime. There are more violent, revolutionary, or both approaches, but I won't mention them explicitly.

Even if we replaced all energy production "magically" with solar/wind/tidal, we'll still have to keep extracting oil to make plastic!

When you are volunteer lolipop person when the local school lets out, but don't want to be late for high tea afterwards.

That's not a requirement, it's more a tradition because the "electoral math" is better.

The the office holder is where the power resides and where the decision is made -- they aren't a figurehead after the swearing-in, no matter what their role was in the campaign.

But, sure, depending on their background how "good" their head is, they certainly don't have to previously have been a chief executive to make a good president.

I'm mostly unaware of Jon Stewart's roles other than being on-camera / eye-candy, except for possibly some non-scripted interview questions (with him on either side). But, from the entertainment world, I think a directing experience probably does exist in the same "space" as chief executive.

I believe the comparison was between to "good old days" and "now", so the 92% number remains valid, even if there are multiple contributing changes.

But, sure, maybe the 44% number is closer to correct.

On average you share 50% of your genes with your mother, but only 25% with your sister. I don't know if that removes any ick, tho.

I agree, but clearly lack of executive competence isn't a blocker for much of the electorate. Jon Stewart does seem genuine informed and engaged on current political topics, so he'd certainly be better than someone that's "simply" well-known and well-liked.

I think TV stars could be valuable resources to a campaign, but I don't think they should generally be the candidate. I'd actually prefer a "career politician" that has a career they celebrate.