I mean, you have your answer right there. It’s not like Harvard is a particularly untrustworthy source for diet recommendations.

Why are you doubting the number? If you feel fine and don’t want to change, don’t. Everybody is different and has different needs, and you might just need less, but anyone reputable is going to give the same rough range.

“a drink” contains roughly the same amount of alcohol regardless of type, so a daiquiri should get you about as inebriated as a beer.
Some caveats: since drunk people drink more, some places have specials earlier in the evening or on some drinks where you can make it a double for no or low upcharge. That glass now has two drinks in it.
Some drinks are easier to drink fast, which makes you feel the effects faster and stronger, so you might perceive yourself to be “more drunk”, even though it’s really just hitting you all at once. Delicious sugary drinks that mask the alcohol flavor are notorious for that.

It takes about an hour to process a drink; sugary drinks will inevitably give you an upset stomach; water and food help keep your stomach settled ; you’ll have a better time not having a drink you could have and feeling good than having a drink your shouldn’t have and feeling gross, so if in doubt say nah.

You’ll be fine with one with a meal with someone you know. A second is probably fine in the circumstances but more than that is iffy.

More trivia rambling than anything: we do actually regularly send donkeys and mules into conflict. They’re better at handling rough terrain than the vast majority of vehicles, so if you can’t send a truck you send people with pack animals.

https://irp.fas.org/doddir/army/fm3-05-213.pdf

The US army manual for the use and maintenance of pack animals.

If you voted for Harris you’re not the person being talked to, are you? They asked why people were mad at those that voted third party.
Why would I be mad at people who voted for Harris?

I don’t buy the whole "you’re not allowed to be mad at the voters!” thing. They had the same information I did, and decided that instead of saying “gee, the easiest thing I can do to in anyway stop the obvious bad things that could happen is to vote against trump” they did some form of “not that”.

If it’s a choice between the zoo and the crotch kicking factory, and three vote for the zoo, four for the crotch kicking, and three more couldn’t be bothered to vote, *I’m gonna be mad at the people who voted for the crotch kicking as well as the people who didn’t vote", and I’m gonna be frustrated when they say it’s the zoo’s fault for not advertising more and we need to move on and hold hands through the kicking.

The election is over though, Harris lost because she ran a shit campaign on proven losing policy. People need to get over that and focus on actually dealing with the shit sandwich we’ve collectively been handed instead of continuing to point fingers and argue about whose fault it was.

I mean this with all sincerity: fuck off.
Arguing that letting this and everything else happen is better than what Harris brought to the table doesn’t just get forgotten because the people who said this would be better are upset they were wrong and don’t want to be blamed.

The “winning policy” is evidently “ethnic cleansing”. That’s what came of all this, do you get that? Milquetoast ceasefire and continuing the slow push towards a two state solution lost to ethnic cleansing.

Whether it’s Trump or Harris that wasn’t going to change. The biggest difference is just one of political posturing.

Trump has already increased the weapons being sent, rolling back a Biden administration block on certain weapons. You can’t just say “no, they won’t use US troops” when we’re on an article about trump wanting to use US troops for ethnic cleansing. Why do you think Israel gets a say in what troops go in? It’s not like they can stop US if we want to send ours in. Why do you think American troops wouldn’t do these things?

We’re not at the hypothetical stage here. There have already been concrete changes in policy that are beyond “posturing”.

The real problem ultimately though is that none of this existed in a vacuum. If this was literally a referendum on how the US should respond to Israel that would be one thing, but that was such a tiny slice of a much bigger discussion.

Yes, and that’s exactly the point. Even if their policies on Gaza were exactly the same, which they very much were not, it would still be better to have voted for Harris because of so many reasons, none of which mattered to the people who swore to not vote for her over Gaza.

This is being civil about things. We’re not saying that the people who refused Harris because of Gaza are transphobic, antivax, anti-education, anti abortion, racist misogynists, even though supporting Harris evidently makes one a genocidal racist in their eyes.

Maybe if people said “you know what? Maybe I made a mistake” there wouldn’t be such animosity, but here we are. Better a mask off fascist than an imperfect compromise.

And don’t worry, I am doing what I can to deal with the shit sandwich they wanted us to have. That doesn’t keep me from having the ability, nor seeing the need for, needling people who thought that this would be better for Gaza than what Harris wanted.

On what? It’s all crazy. “We’re going to invade Gaza” is just as insane as “we’re going to put 18 year olds in charge of the Treasury”, “eliminate the department of education” or “win the war on diversity”.

There’s a lot of frustration at the segment of the population who 1) vocally said that Harris would be just as bad as trump in regards to Gaza 2) loudly argued that failure to listen to them in regards to Gaza would cost the Democrats the election, and 3) said that anyone who was willing to vote for Harris despite not perfectly walking the line in regards to Gaza was a supporter of genocide. “The lesser of two evils is still a vote for genocide”, and “it’s not like it can be more genocide” are both things that have been said to me.

So, according to the people in question: yes, they are that numerous. I’m incredibly sad that I seem to have been right, but also fuck you to all the absolute assholes who accused me of supporting genocide because I’d rather the president get a middling cease fire and shamefully keep sending munitions to Israel than have us actively send troops to ethnically cleanse Gaza. Congrats! You got what you wanted! No more war in Gaza, because we’re going to finish it now.
Even if they’re in they’re not large enough to matter, electorally, they were consistently aggressively smug and superior to anyone who said that maybe trump wasn’t going to be the savior of the Palestinians, as evidence by his explicit words.
It’s cathartic to be mad at people who were condescending towards you when they were wrong, even if you’d rather not be right, purely because they called you a bad person for wanting the same thing but thinking their way to get it wouldn’t work.

I think the most alive you could be would then be some manner of homeless drug addict. You have no power over your life, so no notion of what any day will look like.

This quote kinda rubs me the wrong way because it treats predictability the same as banality.
If you want a job where you never know what the day is going to look like, work for a poorly managed company. You never know what you’re going to be doing, sometimes the project you’re working on one day is cancelled without warning and now people are mad at you for not having been working on the new priority for the past month. Sometimes you go in and you work 36 hours straight without warning because someone else messed up and your boss doesn’t give a shit who’s responsible and you’re the one who knows how to fix it, so fix it or fuck off. Better hope you don’t have a family or you’re going to have to make choices.

Knowing what you’re going to do tomorrow is just having work of any consequence. Food service knows what they’re doing tomorrow. So does a CEO, a software developer at a competent business, or a project manager. I can think of very few jobs whose scope of work is limited to a day, and is so variable that you just don’t know what you’ll be doing. Temp? Personal assistant to an eccentric actor? (Not the manager type assistant, they need to know the schedule. The one that buys coffee, six turtles and a pair of roller skates and doesn’t actually exist).

I could just be dead inside because I know that tomorrow is going to go a particular way that I like.

I literally linked you to a large collection of their statements on the matter, backed by data. “Appeal to authority” isn’t a magic phrase that lets you dismiss expertise entirely. “Appeal to authority” is a fallacy, but “deferring to expertise” is not. I’m not saying these tariffs are wrong because economists say they are, but that it’s reasonable to accept consensus opinion of regarded experts without walking through every step of their argument.

https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/abs/informal-logic/appeals-to-authority/F455E1D4279677917F379D9464A76060

In general, the use of argument from expert opinion is a reasonable, if inherently defeasible, type of argument. Appeals to expert opinion can be a legitimate form of obtaining advice or guidance for drawing tentative conclusions on an issue or problem where objective knowledge is unavailable or inconclusive. It is well recognized in law, for example, where expert testimony is treated as an important kind of evidence in a trial, even though it often leads to conflicting testimony, in a “battle of the experts.”

I specifically mentioned that they can be wrong, and that it’s maybe worth reconsidering when you’re disagreeing with the experts. Of course engineers can make mistakes. But if a group of them say “that bridge is unsafe, we can show you our calculations”, and a non-engineer says that they have an “intuitive feeling” that it is, I know who I’m listening to.

Are you going to keep shifting to different topics? As far as economic arguments go “there’s a theoretical economist who thinks this is a good idea that I haven’t cited and that agrees with my intuition” is… Not very interesting.

I do ultimately think tariffs will be good for the US.

Can you see how maybe it would be easy for a person to think that you thought tariffs would be good for the US? If that wasn’t your point, then I have no idea what you’re talking about.

Why don’t you care what economists say? They’re people who have actually spent time looking at and thinking about these things. They have numbers to back up their claims and, while fallible, they’re likely the most qualified people to make assessments about the economic impact of policy changes.
It’s like saying you don’t care what engineers say when what you’re doing is building a bridge. At the very least it should raise a red flag when nearly all of them say something is a bad idea.

Dude, go reread my first comment. I specifically mention tarrif as a counter to restore market balance after manipulation. These aren’t being used to counteract an anticompetitive subsidy. Raising prices to restore equilibrium and raising prices to disrupt it are very different things.

I know you want this to be something that works, but there’s a reason why reputable economists think this is just the worst idea.

So do either of those strategies apply to the manufacturing of physical goods as are being tarifed?

Do you think that Ford is going to sell cars at a loss to make money on service contracts now that their costs are rising because some parts are fabricated in Detroit, assembled in Windsor, and then shipped back for installation in Flint? If it didn’t make sense to sell at a loss before, why would it make sense to do so now?

Do you think that there’s money to be made on getting people hooked on buying wheat perks?

We’re not talking videogame DLC, we’re talking about food, manufacturing materials, electrical power, and physical goods. The price of these things are going up, just like they went up with previous tariffs. This is a super easy case, because he did it to a lesser extent before, and it didn’t do what he’s saying it will. There’s no reason to believe that making the bad choice more vigorously will make it suddenly have a different outcome.

Video game consoles are sold at a loss on occasion because the marginal cost of game sales is extremely high. There’s no associated product to pair with cement that would drive you to sell it at a loss.

My point was that yes, it will drive people to local businesses, because they will be cheaper. Local businesses have no reason to keep their prices the same if the competition just got more expensive however.

I’m glad you found my comment informative. I’d hate to think I was talking to someone who wanted to say their opinion and then got defensive if someone disagreed with them. It’s a sign of someone with at least a wrinkle or two that they’re open to discussing their thoughts.

For more insight from people even more knowledgeable than me:

https://www.businessinsider.com/what-are-tariffs

https://www.businessinsider.com/krugman-trump-tariffs-immigration-deportation-grocery-prices-wealth-taxes-policy-2025-1

https://paulkrugman.substack.com/p/the-end-of-north-america

https://taxfoundation.org/research/all/federal/trump-tariffs-trade-war/

The way you increase productivity is via exports, not artificially increasing the cost of goods. A sin tax is when you want to stop people from doing things so you make it more expensive. If you want to increase American cement production, you subsidize production.
Adding a tarrif to Canadian cement imports increases cost for imported cement, and encourages domestic producers to increase costs to match. If the competition just got 15% more expensive, there’s no reason for me to not raise my prices 14%.
If the government comes in and says they’ll pay me $15/ton of cement I produce, that encourages me to produce more cement and lower the price to sell it. Now I’m producing more, and I need to hire another machine operator and the economy grows because the lowered cost of cement makes people more willing to do things that need cement.

Tariffs are really only good for counteracting other countries subsidies. If Canada were paying manufacturers $20 a ton to produce cement, then applying a $20/ton tarrif makes the prices unbiased.

It’s why our agricultural subsidies are viewed poorly by food scarce nations: we lower the overall market cost for food, and they can’t afford to subsidize their own production, and returning equilibrium on imports would starve people, so they’re trapped in a cycle of being dependent on imported subsidized food while living next to fallow farms.

Canada and Mexico aren’t subsidizing their export industries, and a lot of what we’re trading is in things we can’t or don’t want to handle. You can’t increase American uranium production, off the top of my head.

We had a position of trade strength, which meant that we could afford to import more than we produced because our intangibles were worth more, and what we exported was worth more. Import steel and export tractors. Now we’re saying we want to stop importing steel, making it harder to export tractors, so that we can bring back low paying dangerous jobs.

If you want to see productivity grow trumps way, go get a job as a farmhand picking spinach. Because his policy is basically that we need less engineers and more farm hands.

It wasn’t the crypto key pair part I was referring to, it was the part where fido is geared towards interactive user auth, not non-interactive storage.
It wouldn’t have surprised me if the ssh devs hadn’t put implementing fido support for host keys high in the development list, or that it was tricky to find documentation for. Using something like a tpm is the more typical method.

There’s no technical reason it can’t work, and the op got it to work so clearly the implementation supports it, but that doesn’t mean it’s the most expected setup, which means it might have unexpected gaps in functionality or terrible documentation.

Unfortunately, I think you’re going to run into trouble because fido authenticators are geared towards working as user authenticators rather than as device authenticators.
It certainly should be possible from a technical perspective, but implementation-wise, it’s very likely that the code focuses on making fido devices work with client keys, and using tpms for host keys, since that’s much more focused on headless server functionality.

Oval peg in a round hole.