Mnemnosyne

Yeah, I find it annoying when the title sounds vaguely interesting and then there's nothing there but a link. Give us a bit of discussion...if you found it worth linking, don't you have something to say about it?

Also people need to stop just copying the title of the article they link to. Those titles are always clickbait. Instead relabel it honestly for people here.

Now show me where they're paying attention to what they can't do.

Like, how nobody can just access secure government systems without proper clearance, which the President can't actually just give without procedure.

Or even more simply, the fact that Trump is not in fact currently eligible to be President in the first place due to his part in the events of Jan. 6.

I do not have confidence that they will be stopped by the fact that something is not permitted, because they aren't being stopped by things that are not permitted, and if this continues for 4 years...there will be nothing left of the system that is supposed stop them.

Weight of a shrunk item is approximately its original weight multiplied by 0.00025 (or 1/4000th if you prefer fractions) of the original weight.

Shrink item doesn't affect the movement of the item, so it would retain the same velocity, it would just be bigger. There is precedent for this in, for example, the reduce person spell, which shrinks a person and all their equipment, but as soon as an item leaves the possession of the shrunken person, it expands to full size (but does not become less accurate or have its range altered in any way).

However that did remind me of one thing. It wouldn't work with a projectile weapon. With a projectile weapon, it deals damage based on the weapon that fired it. A thrown weapon would deal damage based on its size at impact. Funny little quirk there.

As with most of these things, this doesn't actually work. Antimagic fields suppress magic inside them, they don't dispel it. So the bullet would be unshrunk while inside the field (and the field would affect the bullet while it's still inside the gun's barrel, so that would turn out really badly) and then instantly shrink again as soon as it exits the field.

Ironically, this is actually just an overly complicated way to do something the spell alone can achieve. You can end shrink item with a command word from the caster. It would require two people working together, but if the caster readies to give the command immediately after the gun is fired, the bullet would be unshrunk midflight and have the desired effect!

It would mean that whatever the US might hope to gain from invading Canada would be dwarfed by what the US would lose in the conflict.

The problem is this is already the case. Nuclear weapons may make it even more lopsided, but the country is already losing more than it stands to gain from an invasion purely on the economic results.

"Every time we use a lever to lift a stone, we're trading long term strength for short term productivity. We're optimizing for today's pyramid at the cost of tomorrow's ability."

Hey, hey. Elon Musk purchased the US fair and square, we've known that for like 3 months now, no need to go acting all surprised!

Above 100c I'm not wasting money on a doctor.

Remember when people were posting articles on how stupid and ridiculous DOGE is because it wouldn't have the authority to do anything?

Well, in essence and at its purest level the difference in thinking between Leftwing and Rightwing is the difference between “I want people to have a better life” and “I want to have a better life”.

Not even that. The difference is between "I want people to have a better life (objectively speaking)." and "I want to have a better life (as compared to those people)." As long as their lives are better when compared to those people, the conservatives are satisfied. Even if everyone's lives, including their own, get objectively worse.

Gandalf should be more like: knows the solution, forgot he knows it.

Something I've been thinking a lot lately is that democracy is a process. It is a means by which we attempt to ensure a just and fair government for all. It's not an end in itself; we don't want democracy because democracy, at least not once people really think about it.

Which leads me to a saying. "The ends do not justify the means." This is a commonly held statement. However, it also works the other way:

The means do not justify the ends.

That means it doesn't matter if something was done by the rules, using the process, it doesn't matter if we voted for it, it doesn't matter what process was used to achieve it. If the ends are wrong, going "well, it's what was decided democratically" isn't an excuse.