Well, the way we “went back to normal” after an intense election campaign in 2015-2016 was just…not. Not letting it end for the last nine years. This is essentially still the same campaign that started with the stupid escalator ride. I hope it actually does go back to some semblance of normal in a few months, and we can see how that works then.

Fun fact: that was the original idea behind VLC! You could connect to video (and audio) streams. Hence, “VideoLAN.”

• What color was the ball?

I didn’t see a color in my visualization, but I know it was red.

• What gender was the person that pushed the ball?

They were genderless; more of a concept of a person than an image of one.

• What did they look like?

Like…an area of visual space that my mind attached the identifier “Person” to.

• What size is the ball? Like a marble, or a baseball, or a basketball, or something else?

A little smaller than a tennis ball, but bigger than a ping pong ball.

• What about the table, what shape was it? What is it made of?

I didn’t see either property in my visualization, but it’s wooden and round.

And now the important question: Did you already know, or did you have to choose a color/gender/size, etc. after being asked these questions?

Lol. Well, I guess I botched that one. Obviously I did not know before being asked these questions, for most of the answers.

My midwestern US schooling taught me almost nothing about African or diaspora history beyond the slave trade. When I learned that there was a whole big huge continent whose history I didn’t know, I was fascinated. Simultaneously, I was awakening to the systemic injustice that Afro-folks experience in the United States, and wanted to learn as much as I could about their background and context.

And the biggest clue to the truth of this is that the ACA is basically just RomneyCare with a few more individual protections bolted on. It was literally Mitt Romney’s plan to fix health care, and the Obama team used it because they knew that it could get support in the GOP.

So this is true (and increasingly so recently), but a lot of that overhead is technically unnecessary for the message to be sent and received; a lot of it is information about transmission and DKIM validation, spam protection, sender verification, etc; and then a TON of it is HTML for display. For a known receiver to send a message to a known recipient, I believe that a text-only email that’s cryptographically signed for identity validation could potentially be a tiny fraction of the size of a big huge HTML email.

Partially yes, but there’s an even more mundane reason; with nuclear weapons, if the other side has 5, you need 6: five to destroy their five, and one to destroy their capital. But when they discover that, they’ll decide that they need seven: 6 to destroy your 6, and one to destroy your capital. Add in some uncertainty to that feedback loop, and an arms race immediately becomes an exponential curve moderated only by the amount of time production takes and the amount of resources each nation is willing to commit at any given time.

There’s a very real way in which the proliferation of arms is, itself, an uncontrolled nuclear reaction.

The oldest email in my Gmail account is from March of 2006, but I used to delete regularly so the account is probably a couple years older than that.

Copyright-strike the video and they’ll delete it without checking. And since you can’t log in to contest it, it’ll stay down

Fertilizer does provide some help, but cover crops and crop rotation is still necessary. Anhydrous ammonia and ammonium nitrate don’t replenish everything that crops take out of the ground (really just nitrogen); and even if it did, it’s really expensive.

There’s definitely not a /fill command.

Too much effort for these stupid “ideas”. Of it were a child, explain it like you did, but I presume it isn’t. So let me explain it: No.

How profoundly arrogant to presume to tell me what to do or not to do with my own time. I’ll use my time how I like, thank you very much.

And it wasn’t wasted time. I learned things, I produced something, I had fun doing it. I may have even educated others.

Get off your high horse. What you did in posting a complaint about the effort I expended was way more useless than what I did.

I’m aware of that land use need, but actually most farmers use crop rotation to fulfill that need. You plant a crop that depletes phosphorus one year, and then one that restores it the next year. Obviously that’s oversimplified, but actually letting land lie fallow isn’t as critical anymore in a more diverse agricultural world.

Besides, letting land lie fallow is agricultural use, as you’re restoring the land for later growing seasons. That, iirc, is why the word “idle” is included on the map alongside “fallow;” true fallowing would be included in the agriculture regions.

My understanding is that they need an acre each specifically to prevent overgrazing, but I could be mistaken there.

Whoa whoa whoa! The world is already in rough enough shape without you creating pivot tables

American gumption sneers at the laws of physics!

This reminds me of when Weird Al told Canadian (or maybe Australian?) fans who wanted to watch his movie, “there’s Very Probably No way to do this. I know you probably have a TORRENT of questions, but I don’t have time to answer them right now.”

I don’t think the problem is the availability, it’s probably the adoption. But I’m not in higher ed.

I went a more math-less way when I read this originally. The moon is about a quarter the width (diameter) of the Earth, and the variances in the height of the Earth’s crust (mountains and trenches) aren’t visible in satellite images of Earth. If you cut the moon in half and put it down in the Atlantic, would it change the contour of the Earth’s crust as seen from orbit? Yeah, it’d be another eighth-again as wide on one side. You’d notice.

Doing some quick checking confirms: the Atlantic has a volume of about 355 million cubic kilometers. The moon is about 22 billion cubic kilometers. So you’d only need about 1.6% of the moon to fill up the Atlantic.

This is fun. It feels like an xkcd What-If.

Obviously this is a terrible idea, but I’m gonna answer it seriously for the sake of dunking on it.

1. The amount of work. I mean, just astronomical. That’s 1,650 miles of longitude this dude is talking about filling in; the largest earth-moving project ever was the Panama Canal, and it’s only about 50 miles long. Plus, by comparison, it’s essentially a one-dimensional line! This looks like it’s probably in the ballpark of 500-ish miles from the current shore to the new shore, and two-ish miles from the surface to the floor.

2. Where would we get the land from? It’s not like there’s a pile just sitting around. I guess we could dredge the Pacific and truck it across to pour into the Atlantic? Take down the Appalachians and the Rockies? Bring down an asteroid into the ocean? None of that would be enough. In fact, nothing I can think of that we have access to could even come close to providing enough dirt (remember, we need 1,650 x 500 x 2 cubic miles of it!), even if we could manage to do it without destroying ecosystems or killing billions of people.

3. The people who have spent a lot of money buying homes and businesses on the current Eastern seaboard of the United States would probably have something to say about this plan. (Something loud and something very angry.) Besides, it would completely upend the shipping industry, the fishing industry, the tourism industry, and more. This would legitimately destroy multiple national economies, and that’s before you even take into account the ecological disaster.

4. Sea level rise is already a major problem. So displacing a bunch of water in favor of dirt probably isn’t going to help that too terribly much.

5. …why? A lot of America is sitting unused or underused. If you were to clump all of the US’s land use into discrete blocks, it would look like this: The area labeled “LAND?” on the ocean in the OP map is, give or take, the size of the current amount of land owned by the 100 largest landowning families, private family timberland, golf, and fallow land (meaning land used for nothing). This means that the area that the person in question is asking about is already essentially or literally being used for nothing at all. Before we start undertaking an ecologically-disastrous and fundamentally impossible project, we’d probably figure out ways to use that other land.

But there’s more. The land that is being used is almost entirely being underused. For instance, take the “Cow pasture/range” section of the map; cattle account, by far, for the highest land use of any land use in the country. But the 28.2 million cows in America only need about an acre of land each; meaning that the 124.7 million acres of land they roam is about five times bigger than what they actually need. Most of the other production uses for land in the US (along with rural housing) are similarly sprawling because they can be; land is comparatively cheap, so there’s no real reason to consolidate. If that changes, land prices will rise, and the people and companies holding on to underused land will discover that it makes financial sense to sell and reconfigure their businesses to make more efficient use of the land.

So calm down, Lex Luthor. The problem isn’t that resources are actually scarce. It’s that people at the top have a financial interest in underusing their holdings so that they can keep prices artificially high.