burnerburnito

You can actually schedule it so that you simply pull an all-nighter while taking the laxatives. That way you'll be cleared out by the time of the colonoscopy but only really just spend 1 day dealing with the colonoscopy prep and procedure. (You'll still easily want to sleep normally after)

You just pass out on the table and wake up in a bed something like 40 minutes later. I could remember everything up to feeling the effects of the anesthetic and beginning to pass out, but nothing thereafter.

I also received lidocaine, and felt rather great afterwards for the next few hours.

>month long camping retreat

Not dissing your idea, which is accurate, but I can't not-find it funny to then remark that most Americans couldn't even take a 2 week vacation without cheating with sick days.

Of course, keep in mind US v. Paramount recently got sunsetted and it was decided it could never happen again :^)

I think additionally, many people feel there are very real factors skewing the rate of car crashes compared to what it'd be from only "good" drivers with how our bar for driver's licenses in America is so pitifully low. And beyond that, that they can generally have more agency about their fate as a driver than as a passenger in a plane, while it'd seem far simpler to imagine quickly stopping a car in response to a failure than managing to land a passenger plane.

Bonus multiplier if someone was then reading articles about pilots and ATC not getting any sleep.

I've felt incredible hunger and pain. I've had a lifetime of voluntary fasting, sure, but I've also had an experience this year where I spent weeks starving while already underweight and sick as hell withdrawing from a couple drugs, unable to sleep for more than 20-30 minutes tops, and suffering from a (still mostly mystery) intestinal issue.

I was SO hungry, it was indeed one of my dominant thoughts other than wanting to kill myself (or distract myself with hot hand warmers in between puking). It virtually never truly went away, other than when I was distracted by even worse senations.

What I then struggle to understand is why my obese and well-off father with a LOT of free time can't make the decision to stop eating fast food, can't consistently stick with not buying presumably very immediately gratifying and pleasurable fast food that often makes him feel sick later. Why I could actually have made radical changes to my diet years before I ever had that level of extreme suffering, or consistently rejected taking any opioids or weed even when my tolerances were probably more reset 1 or 2 weeks in and they could've provided substantial short-term escape from that hell.

I ask in this manner not to try to "brag", as if there's some achievement in meaningless and random suffering, but rather to ask about and understand how you might interpet it. I feel like I've experienced severe and truly engulfing hunger + pain. Coming out of that, I don't understand why some people can't escape the "addiction" of overeating unhealthy food, let alone too much of it, and others can escape the throes of drug dependency.

What could be so alien about someone like me compared against my own father, as opposed to his being in an active refusal to try?

Ultimately, it all seems to me like the issue isn't one of avoiding pain so much as refusing not to experience constant cheap pleasure, and yet given the same opportunities of similar constant cheap pleasures I've mostly avoided them in seeing the longer term pain lying in wait behind their facade. I feel as though the only definitive observation I can make there is that most obese people can't seem to see their condition similarly. They can get hyped up selling themselved and those around them a meme "diet plan" while its easy in their mind, but once it comes time to do the hard work of rejecting harmful habits all the cheap fun imagining the future disappears and they quit, simply ignoring all the downsides by trying to embrace even more pleasure.

>"or more square kilometers of land [...]"

Technically you need to factor in the fact that a nuclear plant can be built relatively near the places where its power will be consumed; some mass of solar power in Nevada is highly inefficient for powering New York or Virginia, even if you built HVDC lines to cut down on total line losses, so you'll need to pick land tracts reasonably near battery banks that would in turn be near cities.

For whatever it's worth, some places currently disallow pay at the pump if you're refuelling late at night, at least for diesel (I didn't check for gasoline). I've encountered it before while driving across the US even just 1-2 years ago.

I think what he's saying is far more comparable to:

"If you choose to live on an obscure island or corner of alaska unreachable by land, should the government be obligated to keep a doctor living and working nearby you?"

To which I'd then imagine the thought process is more sometimes you'll just have to move to a more urban / developed area if you have a really severe disease, or deal with long drives or getting plane flights.

Remove Swerway and this is just insane enough that I get the feeling this will really happen.

Rip Van Winkle sleeps in a coma for 80 years, wakes up revived in Swerway

What's he supposed to say? "Sweetie, you might maybe be possibly wrong maybe. I might be wrong too but i think it could be saying..."

He didn't attack you or act abrasive. You are right that "I think" is not supremely certain language, but it does actually carry certainty with it since you're not saying "I don't know anything about this, but I think..."

Conclusion: I believe you're being a bit overly defensive, and should relax a little. He wasn't personally attacking you, he was saying you were false when you were objectively false, without much in the way of personal insult or even arrogance, and cited his source reasonably well.

I believe what is "civilian" is something that can become murky, and by justifiable I primarily just mean "logically coherent and able to be justified by a possibly different but not insane ideology"

It's obviously blatantly wrong to kill people who don't want to fight you and wouldn't have resisted. Where things get messy if those same people are providing huge amounts of tax dollars to a government that actives tries to kill or otherwise harm you, doubly so if their government claims to be representative and embrace democratic principles, and thus in theory should be acting per the will of the majority of the population (e.g. mob rule).

And, as noted with the general Human Shield meme that goes around, should you just do nothing, sitting in paralysis if responding would involve even slight harm to civilians? What if that harm will save many more of your own civilians' lives at a cost of many foreign ones' lives? As priorly noted, messy situations are common.

My conclusion is that I was not justifying attacks personally, but stating that people can justify such attacks at least enough to not imo be self-evidently completely absurd.

Moreover, please note that my original messages were in fact describing how military bombings of civilians are easily justifiable in abstract from a distance (regardless of "side"), but the context of reality and the sociopolitical situation of those living in Gaza can make it clearer to us that the Israelis don't ONLY have this option as the least-collateral way to respond, nor a lack of alternatives in general, and so I believe it does become obviously wrong. Much as the 9/11 attacks should obviously be wrong to us, and yet western governments have engaged in active conscious bombings of economic and military targets on a huge scale (and there is a parallel there -- twin towers and the pentagon, economic and military targets after all, and supposedly the capitol too had control of that last plane not been contested and crashed, so a political target too)

What I'm actually describing is how each citizen of a country can be described as supporting any ongoing war efforts, terrorism, etc. -- something which many geneva convention signing nations and their militaries believed in and acted upon not just in ww2 but even in Vietnam and the Iraq war.

Thus I'm suggesting that it can be justifiable to bomb a hospital or school in which enemy combatants are launching attacks from, yet also justifiable to do an act of violence on enemy taxpayers + potential conscripts in general.

By this reasoning, my personal opinion is that if we can use less force to get the same goals, or if we can avoid causing as much collateral damage via longer term planning decisions, it's probably a better choice.

In this case they've had an on-and-off military occupation + extreme restrictions on travel and trade and even foreign aid packages. That's a huge source for anger, and it makes it hard to justify often cutting the strip off from the world as much as possible but then bombing first rather than simply admitting they should either give them agency and self determination or make this occupation total and send boots on the ground to go stop Hamas terrorists in a way that might just kill a few less innocents along the way.

While I agree to an extent, this begs an obvious question: How far do we take this line of thinking?

Is an attack like 9/11 justified since even the twin towers were used by the US government indirectly, owing to nearly everyone within paying taxes that supported US wars and expeditionary-ism?

Likewise, I'd want to keep in mind things like relative size and options on the table. WW2 incendiary and atomic bombing is one thing in the context of the ferocity and consumption of that war. Yet in the case of a small territory under varying degrees of military occupation and without full self determination, is there really no capability to take any action but bombing such places? (And no moral imperative to try to cause less collateral if it's realistically possible?)

Question: how does that rat case actually work out followed through slightly more? If enough players bought at $5k/ton and the seed shortage increases prices due to scarcity, what happens when there's only enough seeds to meet 3/4ths of demand?