Luxury bones.
The fairness doctrine remains in place for electoral candidates (well, it's called the Equal Time rule or something, but same idea). If you give one "major" candidate a prime time interview, you have to offer the same treatment to the other. Trump declined the interview.
This is part of why voting third party is not a waste: imagine if 60 Minutes were legally obligated to host PSL or Green Party for a sit down interview every time they gave one of the Ghouls a time slot.
To colonize other worlds, it's more economically viable to send machines, create biologically synthesized new species (taking dna from local species there), and then transfer consciousness to them. Similar with Avatar, but without having to have the spaceships arrive in the planet full of humans. Humans remain on earth, and they project their consciousness somewhere else, in an instant due to entanglement.
I'm an elder millennial and never got into them either. I generally enjoy the genre that they're supposedly in, but just never clicked with their stuff in particular. Apparently that was a good gut reaction.
Yeah, it's fucking terrifying and a needlessly fast/complex process that seems designed to intimidate people doing it for the first time. Like everything else, it is extremely tilted in favor of people who have limitless money to burn and are doing what they're doing in order to make a profit, not survive. Solidarity, comrade.
I don't really see any serious trends, tbh. I have more than a few that are out-and-out communists, but lots of them are just libs. I've definitely had some NAFO fans, but it mostly just looks like the general population, with maybe slightly larger numbers of radicals (which you'd expect from young people).
I heard a 15 year old say "Jill Stein is a Russian plant" at work today.
I respond to every single text with "Free Palestine."
Has anyone else ever run a third time after being unsuccessful twice?
Biden has been running for president since like 1906.
I did a two-year post-doc in a climate modeling lab at a major research university studying exactly this proposal. I have peer-reviewed publications on it. I cannot overstate what a bad idea it is. It would kill--at minimum--tens of millions of people, and set off the worst refugee crisis the world has ever seen as global precipitation patterns shifted--and those are the effects we know about. Once we start it, we will have to run it indefinitely or incur absolutely apocalyptic snap-back temperature increases.
Still, I will be absolutely flabbergasted if we don't implement this sometime in the next 15 years. It's cheap, effective at controlling temperature increases, and will let us continue to kick the can down the road for meaningful climate action.