If you held on until Ant Man 3, I presume you skipped DrStange 2, Black Panther 2, and "Thor: bring your kid to the movie lot*?
The MCU's been putting out "meh" and "camp" movies for years. (Thor 2). I still go because I have a fairly low bar for date-night, and they're still not the worst movies I've sat through. But I don't know if I'd want to re-watch any of the ones I mentioned.
A diesel engine can literally run on vegetable oil. We don't need fossil fuel subsidies to keep farm tractors working.
If we must distort the market directly, we should do so on the demand side. Give farmers a per-Joule fuel subsidy, and let them use petro-disel, bio-disel, or electric as the market may provide.
Either we believe that markets work or we don't
My other half had a very good experience with TalkSpace, which accepts our insurance.
Unless you're in the Republican medicaid-obamacare gap, you should have insurance and they should have at least some mental health coverage. And if you are or they don't, a professional stranger via an online service is definitely something you should look into.
Whether or not you're "really" a real person, or a brain in a jar, or a butterfly dreaming you're Zhuangzi, you and me and everyone else are still "people" we should respect.
Wrestling with the unfalsifiable nature of reality is something all thought traditions have dealt with, and I'd argue that you're not really an adult in 2025 if you haven't contemplated that all you know could be a hallucination.
The screwier question always becomes "if this is a dream , what if you're not the dreamer?"
Was there any reported reduction in training time needed for subsequent words?
Just getting a computer to understand anything from the implanted wires is progress, but it's "spend hours training for each single word" we're still at a 1970s scifi level of interaction.
No, we absolutely should not mark the records of known transgender athletes in any way. Because once you start down that road you wind up asterisking cisgender athletes whose development is outside the norm.
We could get into a long discussion of transgender persons who do or do not undergo HRT, or how there are already rules against transgender women competing professionally if they aren't on HRT, or whether or not such rules or gendered sports at all are justifiable.
But all of that is just a distraction. The elite in any competitive sport are ALREADY several orders of magnitude beyond the norm, to the point where any advantage a trans woman might have for going through male puberty is essentially a wash with "are you just naturally well-formed for this sport".
It's worth noting, by the way, that there ISNT broadly an athletic benefit to having gone through wrong-gender puberty before medically transitioning. Plenty of athletes have done exactly that, and as far as I know exactly none of them wound up being relatively better among their true gender peers post-HRT than their standing among birth-gendeR peers pre-HRT.
And there have been more instances of cisgender women being wrongly accused of being trans than there are transgender women athletes at all.
In order to justify their own bigotry, they seem to be literally abandoning the central teachings of the key teacher in Christianity.
When Jesus was asked "what is the most important part of the law", the two part response was love . To love God wholly, and to love others as we love ourselves.
When later asked how Christians would be judged, Jesus said that we would be judged as if we had done to Jesus whatever we do to the least among us.
I don't see how it is possible to reconcile bigotry with either of these teachings. I guess they can twist themselves into rhetorical knots and try, but it seems way easier to just decide to love everyone and leave it to God to judge us for whatever our sins may be.
Thank you for your response.
So, your line from "capitalism" to "nuclear family bias" starts at "line must always go up" and passes through a "more adults is less efficient" principle. Ok, I can understand that picture.
I think you're wrong about what "capitalism* means, but not in a way that matters for this discussion.
What I'm confused about is who is asserting that a multi-adult household is less efficient. You aren't, and I'm not, but that sounds like a economic paper trying to smuggle in "christian family values" in the way that creationism tries to smuggle religion into other fields of science.
I honestly just don't get that argument, as multi-adult households are the norm in a lot of nations and a big reason for the shift towards multi-generational households in western societies is the increased wealth gap, where the rich support their extended families and entourages while the poor make do with less. Stable households with more than three adults are literally more efficient by any measure anyone cares to name.
My opinion is that the bias against them comes in large part from America's "middle class" myth, (with working men each having their own fiefdoms), and partly from a belief that they are either inherently less stable or cause instability elsewhere.
How does the prioritization of investment over labor make a non-nuclear family lifestyle difficult?
Nuclear-family bias in law and custom is a real thing all on its own. I'm not sure what capitalism has to do with it, but I'd be fascinated to hear you expound on that if you feel like rambling.
God said no such thing.
The Roman Catholic Popes and cardinals are the ones who said "no divorce."
When Moses wrote down the law, the rule was was "ok, divorce if you must."
According to the Gospels, Jesus (God) appropriately said "divorce is bad, and leaving your wife for a younger model is just adultery with extra steps."
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=matthew+19&version=NIV
(Matthew 19, the aforementioned gospel.)
https://www.insight.org/resources/article-library/individual/what-did-jesus-say-about-divorce
(A Texas pastor opining on the topic. A bit too anti-sex for my taste, but a fair sample of Texas conservative Christendom.)
"President barely passes budget despite his party holding both chambers of Congress" isn't a major anything.
It is a despicable continuation of the November 2024 disaster, but this isn't anything worse than what anyone with any wisdom at all saw coming seven months ago.
(It is less-bad than it could have been, in the way that food soaked in piss is less-bad than food smeared with feces. Small victories, though...)
Hakeem Jeffries and Chuck Schumer are doing incalculable damage to Democratic party unity by not enforcing their party's candidate for NYC mayor.
It doesn't even matter at this point if Mamdami loses -- any call by either "leader" for party unity will be met with "you didn't endorse Mamdami, why should we endorse your pick" by anyone to their left, forever.