As others say, ID has always been issued by states and is usually a drivers license, but also
What about a “Real ID” drivers license?
While a regular license makes no claim about citizenship, id expect “Real ID” to only be obtainable by citizens
It’s a very small percentage of people who would come across a bear and need a weapon. Here in eastern us, you shouldn’t have them for black bears. However I can see long guns in places with grizzlies …… im not convinced it useful, but I can understand feeling threatened
That’s certainly part of it - here in the US, police need fewer guns, harder to get, better training. They need to be demilitarized. I don’t think I’m naive about what police need to be able to handle, but all too often it seems like their first reaction is to start blasting. Most police interactions by far do not need a weapon. Most do not need the escalation.
And of course a big part of that needs to be restoring “qualified” to “qualified immunity”. The current blanket immunity makes bad situations worse
Before the current political climate I would have said it should be a lot harder to get a weapon (except maybe a long gun), and we need to reduce the quantity at least three orders of magnitude (thousandth).
But the current political climate really makes it a stark choice. My visceral reaction is that with the gestapo kidnapping people off the street and sending them to remote gulags, the suspension of due process and constitutional rights, political leadership holding themselves above the law …. We really need guns. All of them. For everyone, to defend against tyrants as the gpframers f the constitution intended
Then I came to my senses. My more considered reaction is the anger, divisiveness, bigotry, and general craziness accepted out in the open, is just going to lead to untold deaths, feuds, more spite and anger, more lawlessness. We need to send Sherman through the south, confiscating all firearms
When I was in a similar situation, I wish I thought of “one way”. I realized after the fact that many people were walking one way to the store but taking a taxi back with their load of groceries. However I have no idea whether it was actually affordable or if that was their only choice.
You should look into that. How affordable is a taxi if you only take it one direction?
My ex is on one of those for blood sugar. She’s not losing weight but she said it made a significant difference controlling her blood sugar.
On the other hand her Dad is also on one of those for blood sugar but he’s never hungry and forgets to eat for days so has lost too much weight. It’s to the point where the doctor said anything he wants, load him up on chips and ice cream if necessary to get him back to a healthy weight
As someone working in a hospital, how are you not on every vaccine, especially those for world travelers? If someone picks up something unusual from a different part of the world, they will be going to the hospital, they will be exposing you to it
That’s a bit of an edge case but why not? If they earn enough to live the way they want, are secure from immediate financial catastrophe, and can afford some luxuries, then maybe they are wealthy, despite being subsistence
Meanwhile someone can earn a nice fat six figure salary but be over mortgaged for house and car, not living comfortably, and paycheck to paycheck on the edge of financial disaster. They’re poor, despite it being by their poor choices
Wealth is freedom from want and financial anxiety
This exact question from this thread is how rich are you and 34 months is quite wealthy.
It’s an important distinction where I’m a potential counter example. I admit it. I earn what ought to be a comfortable living but poor choices in the past (and probably still) mean that I’m only a couple months from financial disaster. And since it would affect my kids education and my old age, the affects would be major. I am clearly not wealthy, mostly due to my own choices
A couple months, but
Basically I’ve been saving up for years to redo a leaky moldy bathroom. That wouldn’t get done. Maybe ever
I’ve saved what I could to pay for my kids college. I could ruin their entire future to stay alive
I’m coming up in retirement age with way too little savings. I’ve finally able to put aside enough to catch up a little bit I guess that would go pretty quickly too
We’re on our way to more than a three-degree temperature rise by the end of this century.
Fwiw, I recently saw a projection that we’re currently on a 2.9° path
We passed the seventh boundary this year, and we’re in the extreme danger zone.
But that’s much scarier. These boundaries weren’t defined back when we thought it was mainly about temperature
At ideal conditions. As the temperature difference is greater, the efficiency goes down. So right when you need heat the most, gas is still at 90+% efficiency while heat pumps are closer to or under 200%.
Then you have to look at capacity. It can be expensive sizing for the greater temp differences when it usually isn’t. If you have a heat pump that can be 400% efficient, do you really want to pay for quadruple the capacity so that even when it’s at 100% efficiency it still puts out enough heat? No one can afford that
What’s your goal in using fake info? If it’s general privacy, it’s easy enough to register where your info is private to the registrar
I’ve been looking at that decision. My furnace is well beyond its expected life and I’d like to replace it before it dies so it’s not an emergency. I’ve looked at heat pumps and really want to make that choice. The incentives help with the initial cost, at least for a couple more months.
But then it comes down to gas is cheaper than electricity. If electricity is twice the cost per unit of energy, is it really sufficient for the heat pump to be twice as efficient? How can I rationalize the choice that is not only more expensive to install but more expensive to run?
And the answer is not sinking yet more money into also doing solar. My house is mostly shaded, and I’m not killing treees just to make this mess work together
Definitely part of the answer needs to be adjusting subsidies to bring the cost of electricity per unit of energy closer to the cost of gas, or maybe incorporating. The externalized costs would actually be sufficient
If we had just moved ahead with solar heat and hot water, or even solar panels, back when President Carter was trying to encourage it, we would already be moved away from fossil fuels
My interest in renewables, in ecology, in recycling, was all from growing up with that. But how did we let fossil fuel companies take over the conversation, guide our choices down the road to their profits at our cost?
I’ll agree with we should have started 40 years ago. We knew we should have and we did have sufficient technology to take other paths.
But I’ll disagree on whether we have the technology now. There was a recent post on Lemmy that in a sunny place like Las Vegas, you could replace 97% of energy generation with renewables and batteries. Cheaper. Not just that you can but that it’s cheaper. We have the technology.
The challenge is always to bring the cost down. We do have technology to create aviation fuel from green sources. We do have several options for fueling shipping that we know how to do. Even if we’re just making ammonia or hydrogen or green diesel, that is a huge step forward that we have the technology for. The problem is we don’t yet have a compelling economic case to (especially since climate change is externalized, not counted as a cost), nor anyone with the fortitude to make it so
Probably. There’s New College in Florida with curriculum controlled by DeSantis and his loyal followers - that should lose accreditation.
But Trump used the threat of cancelling funding to force Columbia and other schools to change their curriculum.
That’s why it’s more important than ever for Harvard to keep up the fight. They see that submitting doesn’t make it stop. On the one hand they’re the wealthiest university so can afford it but on the other hand they have so much more to lose. So much research in so many cities, states, countries, covering so many critical issues in so many fields. So many “best and brightest” from all over the world that will no longer come here. This is a huge impact on American science, and scientific reputation, a huge impact on our tech and innovation, a huge impact on legal immigration that makes a difference. As one of the news magazines said, Trump interfering with Harvard is an “own goal” against the us that could take decades, or a generation to recover from.
So much of the US has been driven by attracting the smartest most capable people from all over the world, and destroying the reputation that brings them here can not be easily rebuilt
My town has a steampunk festival every spring, and this idea would fit right in
If they tried to send me to my country of ancestry, it no longer exists