Mnemnosyne

The mods made under these rules seem guaranteed to be shittier than others.

Appearance and armor mods are out - no Bodyslide. Vast amounts of mods are dependent on SKSE, so those are out. A lot of the coolest stuff these days is possible only with SPID and other such frameworks for mods to use. Those are out.

So, either this will cause a significant decline in mod quality if modders actually try to build for it (to say nothing of the cost - even at $0.50 per mod some of my installs would cost $500+)...or most modders will ignore it, and it'll go unused, cause it's too hard to make good mods under these limits.

Sadly, the only way I can imagine to obtain experimental confirmation of this hypothesis would be unworkable.

It would be necessary to take a population of infants, raise them in strict isolation and teach them nothing of religion, carefully excluding anything that even hints at the concept, while giving them the scientific method and lots of understanding of reality otherwise. Then allow them to develop their own civilization and monitor them for several centuries to see if the concept ever emerges.

If I understand correctly they have some kind of explanation where the sun works like a spotlight or something. But it also requires light to curve in weird ways to make any damn sense, soooo....

If it was me in their place, I'd try giving up as little as possible then seek some sort of binding defense agreement, whether NATO or something else. And if necessary do it in secrecy so Russia doesn't hear about it until the agreement is fully in force.

Honestly I just think the US is simply not reliable, and with Ukraine seemingly relying heavily on the US, they need to be looking for the quickest exit strategy they can come up with at a moment of strength.

Hopefully, if Republicans prevent continued US support, other countries will still provide enough...I just fear it may not be, and that seems like a worse outcome for Ukraine's people.

This developed because it couldn't be fixed in our world, long enough for these people to develop communities, culture, and literally their own language.

In a world where it could always have been fixed, such communities and cultures are not likely to have ever developed, since the only people who could not get it fixed would be poor, and the poor are in a bad position to gather together in groups based on their shared experience and thus be able to form their own culture.

Furthermore, people not wanting to be cured today exist in a world where there already are significant accomodations for their disabilities. It is not likely these people would be able to do this if our society had not made the collective decision to put in the effort needed to accommodate disabilities.

Sadly, when a significant percentage of the country's population refuses to acknowledge objective reality, it's no longer really a sign of individual mental decline.

Like, maybe 30% of the population should be in the looney bin, but that's in no way practical.

Well...without a reliable way to stop the rockets shooting into Israel, I guess they'd have to make sure the rockets aren't launched in the first place.

So yeah, they'd probably step up the war, only now with the explicit objective of wiping out all of Gaza since it's the only way they can prevent attacks.

Israel is VERY aware that support might disappear for them someday. That's the entire point of the nation, so that Jews, who have been persecuted for over two thousand years, do not need to rely on the benevolence of others to defend them. They have their own munitions stockpiles and factories and are themselves an advanced technological nation, not dependent on the US to fight Hamas. They are perfectly capable of wiping out the Gaza strip without outside assistance.

Plus, your question is based on a false premise anyway. Iron Dome is a system invented, developed, designed, and built in Israel. The US did put some money into it, but not an amount Israel could not have. So without US aid, Israel would be somewhat worse off, but overall totally fine.

I find the opposite more annoying. If your memory of those events is accurate there's plenty of things to point to to back it up.

But then you have older people like my father who...I don't know, something has completely rewritten their memories of significant events to the point where he claims many things happened differently than verifiable recorded history. It's impossible to argue with that because of him seeing me pointing out that's not true as an attack and accusing him of lying.

Is being vegan a moral thing? Most that I've heard say yes.

This means that regardless of outward harassing them about it, your mindset is one in which they are doing something immoral and do not care to change it. It is inseparable: the position that it is morally correct to be vegan is inseparable from the corollary that those who are not are less moral.

Knowing that your romantic partner judges you as a bad person does not really make for a positive relationship, I would say. I doubt I would be willing to date someone who holds that position.

Yeah, to Duke, I think a hot chick is a hot chick no matter what.

That, if accurate, is some damning poll results. 75% of them support the attacks on October 7, and an additional 11% are fine enough with them to have no strong opinion. That's 86% of the population.

If 75% of the population supports the attacks, and 86% at least had no problem with them, then I can't agree when people say things like most of the Palestinians just want to live their lives in peace.