It was the message for when the phone service was disconnected. While this often happens after the person dies, it could have also meant they were away for an extended time. (Such as "I’m going to stay with my daughter for a few weeks after the birth of my grandchild.)

Absent other explanations, though, death is a probable explanation.for a grandmother’s phone being disconnected.

(Note that “poor with no money” is also possible, since phones cost money.)

AI will likely be similar to Asimov’s robot series, but just a bit grittier.

• Useful almost-human thing we don’t know if it’s a person or not
• Ubiquitous and relatively harmless
• Winds up killing millions if we put it in charge.

Not everything is a spectrum. You are either actually pregnant or not-pregnsnt. You’re either free to go when the officet is talking to you or you are being detained. You either had consent for sex or you didn’t.

For example, if the example you provide to bolster your argument is “Hitler had admirable qualities”, then you’ve jumped all the way past Godwin’s law and there’s no use talking to you.

“most people” are (1) a much smaller group that you think and (2) wrong.

If your behavior can at all be described as sexist, then you’re not a feminist. That includes both Feminism Appropriating Radical Transphobes like JK Rowling.and outright sex pests like Andrew Cuomo.

Of course I’m a feminist. It’s one of those sublime categories like “alive” or “pregnant” that has only two possible states.

1. Feminist
2. Sexist pig.

"feminazi’ is kinda like calling a woman a “female”. Its use conveys a “I’m a sexist pig” message you do not seem to intend.

Better terms for women who believe that (cisgender) women are superior to men.

• Feminine Supremacist
• Feminine Chauvinist
• Sexist Woman
• Man-hater
• Anti-feminist
• F.A.R.T.
• Sexist woman
• Sexist pig

Some of these may covey other messages in their usage.

Thank you for your response.

So, your line from “capitalism” to “nuclear family bias” starts at “line must always go up” and passes through a “more adults is less efficient” principle. Ok, I can understand that picture.

I think you’re wrong about what "capitalism* means, but not in a way that matters for this discussion.

What I’m confused about is who is asserting that a multi-adult household is less efficient. You aren’t, and I’m not, but that sounds like a economic paper trying to smuggle in “christian family values” in the way that creationism tries to smuggle religion into other fields of science.

I honestly just don’t get that argument, as multi-adult households are the norm in a lot of nations and a big reason for the shift towards multi-generational households in western societies is the increased wealth gap, where the rich support their extended families and entourages while the poor make do with less. Stable households with more than three adults are literally more efficient by any measure anyone cares to name.

My opinion is that the bias against them comes in large part from America’s “middle class” myth, (with working men each having their own fiefdoms), and partly from a belief that they are either inherently less stable or cause instability elsewhere.

How does the prioritization of investment over labor make a non-nuclear family lifestyle difficult?

Nuclear-family bias in law and custom is a real thing all on its own. I’m not sure what capitalism has to do with it, but I’d be fascinated to hear you expound on that if you feel like rambling.

That’s a hell of a lot of words that aren’t either “of course we should vote in every election for the best possible candidate” or “no, we should withhold our votes in the general if the Dems don’t nominate someone sufficiently progressive.”

If you mean the latter, say it. If you don’t, then say that, too.

So, you are in favor of “my guy or the Nazi” voting? I didn’t hear a “no”, there.

It isn’t “loser talk” to recognize the rules that elections run by, or to push back against the “both sides” rhetoric that lets the Overton window drift ever rightward.

Either you show up and vote in every election for the least bad candidate, be they good or great or only “not as bad”, or you are doing more harm than good.

What does that fight look like, in your mind? Standing and shouting for Bernie and then sitting out the general when Clinton wins? Or arguing for Bernie in the primary since he’s the best choice and then arguing just as hard for Clinton in the general since she’s the best choice then?

Primary-only voting doesn’t force anyone to do anything but ignore us harder in the primary.

And if that isn’t what you mean by your objection to framing all elections as choices for “least bad”, then why are you echoing the rhetoric of those who do?

I don’t know how you square the circle of asserting that ‘both sided are bad’ is what got us here and still echoing “less bad” to buttress their thesis

Waiting for the left to be “good” instead of “less bad” is what makes “both sides are bad” such an effective demobilization tactic.

Picture the clearest example in human history, where one side was absolute villains and the other a superman-esque obvious good guy.

Then explain to me how the good guy is not the “least bad” choice.

Because too many of us who had selfish political actions, and for decades kept saying “both sides are bad” while the side nearest facism kept acting in bad faith.

Democratic elections have always in the end been about picking the least-bad option. And, like it or not, elections and their consequences shape the rest of the world.

Starts reading.

“Hmm, I wonder where the presumption that pre-colonial values were entirely different than colonial ones comes from.”

Get to the part about all the speakers at the conference being white

“Oh, there it is.”

Racists and regressives do come in every color, but looking like the khlam or a meeting or the “my great grandpappy helped conquer Africa for Europe” club is something else altogether.

Is this moron still involved in any way?

Was he ever?

(Apropos reminder that Musk has nothing to do with Tesla staring; he just showed up with his PayPal golden parachute, picked “founder” as the title he wanted, and they proceeded to success largely in spite of anything he actually did.)

Pascal’s wager is a defense of theism in general, not a specific flavor of theism. If you accept that there is a God, any God, then you can reason and argue about which way to worship her is correct.

If you do not believe that God exists, however, then the particularities of which godhead you worship are irrelevant trivia.

If God or Brahman or Kamisama exist, then they are aware of the imperfect worship flavors that they receive and have appropriate accommodations included, if they are worthy of worship at all. (Please note that Zeus is not included in this list, because that guy’s just a rapist bastard.)

You’re right, the behavior of how Iraq and Afghanistan were handled was entirely different from either Germany or Japan after WW2.

My assertion is that the USA did too much “occupation” and not enough “governance”. Both Iraq and Afghanistan essentially had anti-government resistance movements forced into pseudo-national rule without any time to develop local governance.

Once the states were broken W wanted to get out, essentially since he feared accusations of imperialism. Which kept a good twenty year plan from being implemented, and instead led to a twenty year quagmire with one of the two essentially being a failed state.

(Man, that’s a lot of essentially’s)

I don’t mean to defend either invasion as either good for the people or necessarily for American security. I just want to point out that W’s position was “go and break things then go home” which is about as imperial as a viking raid.

“I just do what I want” isn’t a philosophy, because it doesn’t give guidance as to what someone else should do . It’s just childishness.

Even Randism / Objectivism stretches selfishness into “rich people should do what they want”. Trump doesn’t even get that far

I’ll grant that the orange felon is consistently selfish, though.

Even Bush jr wasn’t as much imperial as he was militaristic. Iraq and Afghanistan would both have arguably benefited from a time as an American protectorate like Germany or Japan, but W handed over “sovereignty” while the wars were still ongoing.

Trump isn’t coherent enough to have an understandable philosophy