PeterMP

The scanner wasn't a traditional scanner. It had features at the time were new and not common in grocery stores, including a scale (which it common today but not then) and the ability to read torn bar codes (which scanners today still don't seem to do a job of doing). Did you bother to read either of the links that I posted? There multiple news organizations there including Times, News Week, the AP, and the NYT. Only the NYT reported at his "amazement" (and they even made it front page story). All other others even at the time said he wasn't amazed by what was then the common scanner. (If you want to keep believing something that isn't really true, there's nothing that I can do about it.)

I've read in the past that it has never happened unless the gun was also used in another crime. I don't know what normally sentencing is.

I want to point that the Bush's mind was blown by a (traditional) scanner isn't true. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supermarket_scanner_moment https://apnews.com/article/61f29d10e27140b0b108d8e12b64b839 (NYT initially wrote the story that way, but every other news outlet that was there reported that the NYT story was false. But then other places, especially late night comedians picked up the NYT version of the story. This was one of the first cases where the right-wing media really bashed the MSM and probably with some validity.)

Just a reminder to enjoy the little things. My oldest has been playing soccer since she was like 4 but isn't playing next year in college. She played her last game this weekend. We have a tradition of rehashing the game later at home, so just like always we did that. It really struck me the next day that will be the last time we do that.

I missed the play/game when Wemby was knocked to the ground when the ball wasn't even in play. Nobody (at least most people) aren't saying she should "get off". But saying people shouldn't intentionally run into a player during a dead ball in a non-basketball play isn't saying some one should get off.

It certainly isn't inevitable. China is a country in (a slow) decline. It is clear their economy has peaked (and with sanctions will decline) and was never as strong as they claimed. Their demographics are upside down and getting worse. And (especially given their size) they are natural resource poor. The general consensus is that the Chinese are making an effort to do it by 2027 (there has been some statements by Chinese leaders to that affect). Partly, that time frame is because of their larger situation (e.g. population demographics). Similar to Putin invading Ukraine where many people believe Putin did it now vs. playing a longer game because he saw that the Russia wouldn't be able to do it in a decade or so because of demographics and a declining population. If you let China take Taiwan, it will come with larger costs associated with much of Asia moving towards China. It will also likely result in nuclear proliferation as you can expect other Asian states (and maybe even Australia) to develop nuclear weapons to protect themselves. Taiwan isn't a nuclear state and killed their nuclear program partly out of pressure from us, but as part of that pressure came some security. Our protection is also one reason why states like S. Korea and Japan don't become nuclear. If we let China take Taiwan, you can expect other states question our ability/willingness to protect them and look to develop nuclear weapons to protect themselves. If Japan and S. Korea become nuclear states, then you might even see it spread to countries like Vietnam (and then certainly Australia). (In terms of it being inevitable, even Taiwan has the ability to develop nuclear weapons (i.e. the money, technology, and know how). If they did, that would certainly prevent a Chinese invasion.) **EDIT** I will point out that nuclear non proliferation/prevent an arms race is really why we fought the first Gulf War. We were actually allies with Saddam at the time (supported him during the Iran-Iraq war and saw him a balance force against Iran), and he would have gladly continued to sell us Kuwaiti oil. The issue is we also had a long standing relationship with Kuwait and while not an official defense agreement a general understanding. If we simply let Iraq take over Kuwait, other countries in similar situations would have questioned our support and been more likely to develop nuclear weapons/start arms races, including the Saudis and Taiwan. You'd likely want to fight a war against China with hopes that it doesn't go nuclear for the same reasons.

China actually really got messed up with Russia invading Ukraine, and then their response. Before that, people sort of weren't taking China seriously, but with their upgrading their military, their other initiatives, and Russia invading Ukraine people are now taking it seriously. Their other problem is the vast majority of relatively powerful countries aren't neutral on rising Chinese power. Many of the Asian countries (e.g. India) don't really care about Russia taking Ukraine and are still buying from Russia and selling to Russia. But India is very much worried about rising Chinese power, is upping their military spending, and recently did things like role out a new aircraft carrier. Realistically, they are 15-20 years behind China. They don't have the ability to take on the front line Chinese military, but in terms of shutting down the shipping of oil to China if the core of the Chinese navy was destroyed or engaged elsewhere, they'd be fine. They also have a younger population and an economy that's actually growing. (Most of the oil to China has to go through some tiny strait that connects the Pacific to the Indian Ocean which is why they've talked about building a new canal through Thailand. https://foreignpolicy.com/2020/09/01/china-india-conflict-thai-kra-canal/) And the EU doesn't want to become dependent on China for technology (things like chips). To them, China isn't a threat at the level of Russia, but they also don't see the rise of China as a neutral thing and wouldn't see a Chinese invasion of Taiwan neutrally. They are already sanctioning China (ostensibly over support of Russia) but are looking at other sanctions too. If China tries to take Taiwan, they'll get no support from anywhere other than Russia and maybe Iran (but Iran is also pretty friendly with India. Iran would probably go towards China, but it isn't a sure thing.), and China doesn't have the oil to keep their economy afloat and Russia can't afford to and won't just give things to them. There's no way it makes sense for China to try to take Taiwan (unless they've pretty thoroughly infiltrated the Taiwanese government/military and can do it relatively bloodlessly and/or have infiltrated the cybersecurity systems of their opponents and can take them off the board before they start). Hopefully, the Chinese leadership acts rationally.

I want to point out that CSIS is heavily funded by the defense industry. Their answer is almost always more defense spending. In particular in this case, they mention fighters (as in fighter jets) 14 times in their report. They mention drones twice and one of them is a reference. If Taiwan is competent, their ability to resist an invasion across the strait's is not going to be dependent on their use of fighters (and so to protect them and their bases). We've seen with Russia/Ukraine how cheap drones have been able to attack and neutralize the Russian navy. China is going to have move their whole military operation across the straits. There's no doubt that China can pretty much destroy Taiwan using missiles, including air force bases and runways. But to actually take Taiwan, they have to put a large amount of military hardware and people on ships which will be vulnerable by attacks by relatively cheap, inexpensive, and safe drones that don't need a real base or much of a runway. Now, China has a vast drone fleet itself, but Taiwan gets to play defense and is working on closing the gap. https://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/us-china-tech-taiwan/ (There are three real concerns with respect to a Chine attacking Taiwan: 1. How far have the Chinese infiltrated the Taiwanese government/military and is it to the point that Taiwan won't be able to function? 2. How good is China's cyberwarfare compared to us and Taiwan? If our systems aren't secure, then that very much might tip the balance to China. 3. If (when) things go badly, will they resort to WMDs?)

Time travel. We are alone but humans from the future are coming back.

https://gizmodo.com/drake-equation-update-fermi-paradox-intelligent-life-1851503974 Updated Formula on Alien Intelligence Suggests We Really Are Alone in the Galaxy An adjustment to the famous Drake Equation could radically refine estimates of intelligent civilizations in our galaxy.

Germany was a dictatorship (empire) before and during WWI. WWI ended the German Empire (so about 1919). Hitler takes power in Germany in the early 30s. They literally had about a decade as a democracy and it wasn't very stable/peaceful during that decade. (I think the election will be close where Trump will get at least 45% of the popular vote, and he doesn't need to get 50% to win. Whether he wins will depend on what happens between now and the election. A good and stable economy, no terrorist attacks, etc. I think will give Biden the win. If there is a recession starting in Aug. or a pretty major terrorist attack, Trump wins. I think perception of the economy will break as long at stays strong. Especially now with the news that stores are dropping prices. That seems to have made pretty big news. But I think in the end, people will look at their own pocketbook.)

I don't think this is really true. Certainly based on today's standards Carter wasn't liberal and even at the time he wasn't considered liberal. Through that post-Vietnam stretch there certainly a strong liberal wing of the party, but it couldn't win elections at the national level. The Democratic party moved to the right because that was what was necessary to win national elections. I think Clinton was more of a product of a move right to win national elections then created a move right.

I can't find pure numbers for support of Roe by party longer term. But through the 1990s just under 30% of Republicans wanted abortion legal under any circumstances and as late as 2018 over 50% of Republicans didn't want Roe over turned. https://news.gallup.com/poll/246278/abortion-trends-party.aspx https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/first-read/nbc-wsj-poll-support-roe-v-wade-hits-new-high-n893806 I don't think broadly classifying pre- maga Republicans as anti-Roe and certainly anti Loving is very accurate. (Nationally, moving to much too the right would be a mistake for Democrats. In certain areas, it would be beneficial. I don't know if that's possible any more. Once upon a time, people said all politics were local. With the death of small local newspapers and the creation of the 24-hour national new organizations and even right-wing radio and today the internet, I don't think that's true any more.)

https://www.propublica.org/article/3m-forever-chemicals-pfas-pfos-inside-story?utm_source=pocket-newtab-en-us "Toxic Gaslighting: How 3M Executives Convinced a Scientist the Forever Chemicals She Found in Human Blood Were Safe" Really a story about how long and how much 3M knew about forever chemicals before things became public knowledge. It doesn't seem that they really ever convinced her the chemicals were safe. She knew they were there and decided not to push it.

Just to add onto the last thought, my mom's 77. In her early to mid-30's she was overweight. She's sort of short, but she was over weight and had to be at least pushing obese based on BMI and must have dropped at least 20 pounds. And she's kept if off. My mom today weighs less than she did in early 30's so pretty large weight loss and keeping it off is possible. And my mom does it with a diet that I don't think anybody would expect to be key to weight loss. Her #1 snack is pretzels (and even salted pretzels). She takes pretzels every where with her. She keeps a bag next to her bed. @Califan007 The Constipated and I talked about diet soda earlier. She drinks 2-3 bottles of diet soda a day and has done so ~40 years. Her breakfast is cinnamon raisin toast with fake butter on it (and not a special whole/wheat whole/grain bread but whatever the cheap processed stuff you buy in the grocery store is). That and pretzels get her through to lunch, and I don't think she eats any protein with lunch. I think she has a salad, a piece of fruit, and goes back to eating pretzels. From what I know of the science, if you took somebody in their early 30's and said they are going on a weight loss plan that is mom's I'd tell you not only is that person not going to lose weight, but they are going to gain it. Not an MD and obesity isn't close to what I do for research, but I'd say if you have issues with weight, there's nothing wrong with trying something new. Especially if you have issues with yo-yoing where you try the same thing over and over and lose the weight just to regain it. Science is great, but if the "normal" science stuff isn't working for you, then I'd say it might be worth trying something different.