I look at it this way ... when rules don’t favor republicans they just make up new rules, shoddiliy justify this absurd rulemaking, then continue under the auspices of their new absurd rules. See the Merrick Garland nomination. See the efforts to suppress minority voter turnout with armed white militiamen or ID…

I’m someone who’s freely criticized both major parties in the past and will certainly do so in the future, but the Democratic Party wasn’t the one stirring its base into a frenzied bloodlust about jailing and executing the opponent, or crafting outlandish conspiracies like saying the opponent murdered people.

No, I simply am saying Hillary is a terrible candidate with limited appeal that the entire Democratic party anointed from Day 1, making it virtually impossible for other candidates to have a shot. Hell Sanders, a fringe protest candidate at best,  almost beat her anyways. Imagine if say Warren just for an example, or…

Easy. Your country is full of terrified, racist, sexist assholes.

There are so many “toss-up” states going by recent polling that it’s terrifying enough. There’s a very good chance that Hillary wins but doesn’t get past 300, which would be the closest election since 2004.

It’s some gross, creepy fantasy, I guess, for a guy being able to ‘snag a lesbian’, because even though she has the hots for women, he has the Magic Penis to make her love him.

As someone who has worked in software development for over ten years, I’m completely befuddled by your statement. The variables mean very little? Hogwash. They’re of great significance since, as you noted, they help determine the results. I don’t know why you would ever imply that the tools used to build something are…

Nope! Since I quoted you, that’d make you awfully unoriginal.

You realize the hypocrisy here, right? Why should the authors of either article only be allowed to talk if they agree with you? If you don’t like these journalists, why don’t you just get over it and move along? It’s the same thing.

I don’t care to go after the guy for only basing attraction on physical features—why do a bunch of extra coding for just one unrealistic thing?—but the lack of strictly straight women is bizarre.

So we are talkin about cities without functioning mass transport, utilities, healthcare and security. Basicaly San Andreas or Los Santos from GTA. New jobs available for uneducated billions, with driverless cars and Uber style economy: bodyguards and prostitues.

You realize that not everyone is capable of working in an “idea-driven” industry, right? I mean, someone is going to have to produce and maintain the infrastructure that allows you and your family to enjoy broadband connectivity along with the clean water and whatnot.

There’s nothing inherently wrong with wanting to live in a city. People like being around people, and a well engineered city is a great location for people of all ages and much more energy efficient than a rural environment. Problem is good engineers are just starting to look at how to design cities, previously it…

I believe that the point was that the eggheads of the military should be working for someone other than the military. I personally find it important that people who predict and pursue future problems and negative scenarios should also be working on fixing or preventing those scenarios, rather than lamenting how…

Agree. Most future predictions assume things will continue as they have and that almost never happens.

Why are analysts that try and predict the future SO FUCKING BAD AT IT?! It’s so clear that they are basically saying “well, this is what happened for the last 25 years, so it must be what’s going to happen for the next 25!” These same kind of people were probably talking 25 years ago about how cities were going to be…

Yep. In retrospect my barren womb and inability to qualify for IVF were really a boon. Every passing year makes me more grateful for it. I feel sorry for the kids who are inheriting our world, I’m glad I don’t have any to suffer in it.

Yep

Megacities, you say?