trafguy

I could be mistaken, but many years ago I believe I learned that plywood is generally made by spinning a log while slicing a thin veneer off the surface, then stacking multiple of those veneers into plywood. The grain on the surface would be notably different when cutting wood with this method compared to sawing planks

Perhaps. In theory, you're definitely right. I just feel that this is something where building the momentum during a single election cycle isn't feasible. The most likely result of voting for a third party without laying this groundwork would be splitting the vote and giving a landslide victory to the greater of the two evils.

Formally organising online would make it possible to demonstrate how much support each candidate actually has without giving an official vote to a candidate that the general public isn't confident enough to vote for. Watching participation grow and third parties receive substantial semi-official support could build excitement and lead to a third party being trusted to have the sway to win.

I'd love to be proven wrong though. If we can organize enough support for a third party within a single election cycle that it's reasonable to risk voting for that candidate, I'm open to it. I already have too much on my plate, but if no one has built this service by the time I have energy for it, I'll definitely be thinking about it

I suppose it'll continue until enough people believe that it's possible for a third party to win.

I think ranked choice voting would make it much simpler to foment that change. People need to be able to trust that breaking from the party line has a real chance of success, but that can't happen without demonstrating support.

If we can't have real ranked choice voting, a third party could build a website to let people coordinate votes according to ranked choice, and hopefully carry the result as a unified bloc to the polls. Have an agreement that if a certain threshold of participation is met, vote for the ranked choice result. Otherwise, lesser of 2 evils.

It's interesting how often that happens. Phrases get simplified and as the nuance is lost, the meaning more or less gets reversed.

I never verified, but some years ago I heard someone expand on that as meaning something like "That which makes customers willing to buy is the right thing to do". It makes sense. If a moron will buy gold plated lead, a capitalistic perspective says sell gold-plated lead. Ethically a bit fucked? Sure. But interesting nonetheless

Thank you for sharing that. I don't know who it was, but some months back I was introduced to a particular document describing creative tactics for protecting old-growth forests. All I can say is, I'm glad there are at least people giving anti-environmentalists hell, and making it a war to achieve the destruction demanded by short-sighted profit-seeking.

I suppose it's the same with every facet of life. Protecting what we have is more difficult than finding ways to tear it down. Like how software security is a constant game of whack-a-mole, fixing security vulnerabilities as they're found.

I'm in more or less the opposite scenario. I used to be able to actually do shit, then something snapped and it's far more difficult for me to do anything efficiently. I think what snapped was effectively my self confidence. After a period of existential crisis, things stopped feeling so important all of a sudden. So the herculean effort that allowed me to complete all my work and keep up on everything stopped being possible, because it briefly became impossible leading me to recognize how unsustainable that was.

Now I'm in a position where I still try to get what I need to done, but I try not to stress about it so much and I prefer to do what I want. And making myself do what I need to do is partially a matter of medication (Vyvanse) and partially trying to find reasons to enjoy/prefer the tasks that are important for my survival, then capitalizing on that intrigue/excitement.

Basically, I guess it comes down to choosing to accept whatever our current reality is and trying to work from there. There are reasons that I'm fortunate, just as there are reasons others would probably say I'm falling behind in life. Doesn't really matter in the end. All any of us can do is what we can actually do. If we don't allow that to be enough, we'll drive ourselves insane with the dissonance.

Thanks, that makes sense. So the only workable solution for the largest owl species is to not ruin their environment in the first place, and for smaller species building habitats is a risky proposition. Hopefully we're successful in preserving what remains of our primordial forest cover then.

I'm 100% in favor of preserving old-growth forests, but would it be effective to build habitats specificially for owls, distributed throughout both new and old-growth forests?

We honestly should just replace every single fixed dollar amount in every law with an algebraic formula. It's ridiculous that we design laws to become dated and require replacement.

Minimum wage should be tied to worker productivity, and wealth tax should be tied to the median personal income, including that of non-working adults. Welfare programs should be tied to regional cost of living. Limits on rent should be tied to changes in regional median income.

We're already tracking most or all of that data anyway, might as well put it to maximum use.

And you also do not know where you are in Dunning-Kruger Club

Never been part of that community personally, but thanks for helping to support the platform. Even if you're not seeing much traction, it's appreciated. What would you think of picking the most engaging Reddit content and migrate it here to help boost community size? Or maybe posting to Reddit with a watermark/credit leading to your Lemmy community?