BillyClark

I don't know this painting at all, but I think a good title would be "Man who thinks that he looks amazing."

I have never dual booted successfully. I mean, I have set up dual boots. But I am fundamentally incapable of actually switching back and forth. I inevitably just pick one OS and only boot into that one.

Here's the relevant quote from the article:

“You can’t earn a billion dollars,” Ocasio‑Cortez said. “You just can’t earn that. You can get market power. You can break rules. You can do all sorts of things. You can abuse labor laws. You can pay people less than what they’re worth. But you can’t earn that.”

James Blitch, huh?

We should start using the word "blitch" to mean a person who will go far out of their way to do the right thing.

Honestly, unless we change our electoral college and the way that Senators represent people, which are things that we should totally do, we should break up our most populous states into smaller states. I would say that should be our first goal for new states.

States with large populations ironically have less proportional representation in the Senate, and they have fewer electors, per capita, in the presidential elections. In other words, in populous states like California, Texas, and Florida, the voters have less representation than if they lived in Wyoming.

Plus, the Senators and electors are generally winner-take-all, which means that, if you compare to a multiple state solution, the minorities in those states are essentially disenfranchised completely.

So, with such a large discrepancy in population between the most and least populous states, countless voters are getting screwed under our current system.

The only people who benefit from large, populous states are people who are leaders of some sort in those states. The governors of Texas and California have power over many more people than the governor of Alaska. Wealthy people get more if they buy a state politician in Texas than in Vermont.

It would make more sense to split some states up and maybe merge other states together until there is at least some pretense that each state has a similar population.

If god is real, he very likely doesn't give a shit about humans. If you interviewed him, he'd say that all of that stuff you attribute to him was obviously made up by humans.

If you look at it from God's perspective, assuming he exists, you have all of these groups of people who claim to worship him, and the biggest ones all have different holy books, and all of those holy books are flawed. They're even self-contradictory. I think God would be offended if people thought he was responsible for those piles of trash.

On the other hand, if God created our cosmos, surely he'd at least approve of people trying to understand it compared to boring people who ignore the world and just chant the same things over and over.

I remember once while debating religion, Sam Harris making a point about how, when sharing certain beliefs, people pay an immediate price when they talk about them. The one in particular is that Elvis is still alive.

He wasn't specifically talking about conspiracy theories, but it made me think about them, nonetheless. If I did my math right, were Elvis still alive, he'd be 91 years old today. So, it's far, far more likely that Elvis is alive than it is that the Earth is flat.

Flat earthers do pay that sort of price, but I don't think we ridicule them enough, compared to how much more ridiculous their views are than the people who think Elvis is still alive.

I suspect that blindness changes the rules and expectations by quite a lot, so most of my advice would fly out of the window.

However, I do personally have a problem with remembering names, and so I have one bit of advice that I think is relevant.

there’s no polite way for me to say “hi, who are you again?”

My advice is that, if you think you have, say, a 60% chance of getting their name right, just say that name. If you get their name wrong, they'll probably correct you, but if you're anything like me, when you think it's 60%, the odds are actually much higher.

That is actually what I do, personally, as a person who is bad with names. I realized that I used to mentally punish myself when I messed up a person's name, but conversely, when somebody else messed up my name, I didn't care and immediately forgave them. Basically, I was holding myself to an insane standard that I didn't hold anybody else to.

So, instead, if I think I more likely than not know the name, then I say it. I've only had one person get upset with me in all the time I've been doing this. It's a person who I used to run into fairly frequently, like once every couple of months, but I seemed to have a mental block on his name specifically, and I simply couldn't remember it no matter what I did.

My only other advice is to be careful about letting people know you can identify them by odor. It depends on the odor and the person, but some people could probably be offended by that.

For most people, their own name is one of their favorite sounds in the world. If my friends didn't call me by my name, I wouldn't think we were as close of friends.

If you know somebody's name, it's really good and normal to greet them using their name. Even if you only say their name during the greeting, it will improve relationships and moods with just that. It's so important that I would even recommend that you "fake it 'till you make it" in this case. Even if it feels awkward, start greeting people in person by saying something like, "Hi Steve," or whatever similar greeting feels comfortable to you.

You can use people's names more that that, but it's a skill how to use names without being too weird. So if you're not used to it, start with greetings.

I'm mostly concerned with the unnecessary fuel consumption, so in that light, I think it would make the most sense to send them all in a single sailboat.

They should all travel on the same plane.