Keurigs are actually pretty convenient when you’re only making one cup. The trick is to get one of the reusable filters and just use whatever coffee you like.

That’s another big reason to practice for sure, but I think it’s a stretch to call that belief.

This is a pretty broad question, it really depends on what you mean by “believe in religion”:

1. Believe that a particular holy book is literal, historical truth.

2. Believe in the moral teachings of a particular holy book and follow its practices.

3. Believe in the existence of a universal higher consciousness (God)

1 is a vocal minority, and the reasons have been sufficiently explained elsewhere in this thread.

2 is much more common, and can derive from a number of reasons. Cultural identity generally determines which holy book (and interpretation thereof) you follow, but the attraction to moral framework is deeper than cultural identity. Having a set of guidelines to inform moral behavior, and a method of alignment and focus (prayer) is very valuable.

3 is a metaphysical consideration, and pops up even in 2024 because consciousness is still a mysterious phenomenon. Every explanation leads to roughly the same conclusion: if consciousness is an emergent property of complex interconnected systems, then it stands to reason that the most complex interconnected system (the universe) is more likely than not to be conscious; if consciousness is some external force that complex systems can “tune into” like a radio, then it stands to reason that “consciousness” permeates the universe; if consciousness is something else which defies scientific description, then it stands to reason that there exists some agency to dictate the rules.

Those are, broadly, the rational explanations of consciousness of which I’m aware, and they all imply a universal consciousness of one variety or another. If you can think of another I’d love to consider it.

If you meant something else by “believe in religion”, let me know.

Without Biden’s unconditional support Israel would have to stop.

How did you come to that conclusion? Israel has their own arms production, and many current and potential allies who would step in.

Frankly I’ve accepted it, minimized my interactions with the database(s), and don’t worry about it. “They” don’t have anywhere near the capacity to meaningfully process all that raw data for every person. Sure if you’re popping up red flags left and right you’ll get assigned to someone who will scrutinize you more thoroughly, but as long as you’re boring (in a traceable capacity) no one has the resources to go over all your messages with a fine-toothed comb.

If you don’t like being in a database, don’t interact with systems that lit you in a database. Drop social media, get rid of your phone, stay off the Internet. There are steps you can take to avoid extensive records in “the system”, but people generally don’t like taking them because “the system” has fun content they don’t want to miss. If you want to have your name and eat it too, just be boring.

The veterans I know say wipes are a god-send on deployment. Dude Wipes are particularly big, which is great for a wipe-down when you don’t have access to a shower.

Breakfast in America is always a fun album to play for people, because you get “Wait, this song is Supertramp too? And it’s the same album??”

I disagree here because I don’t think they’re really underrated at all. They’re fantastic, and generally rated as fantastic by most people who’ve listened to them. Maybe they’re not as popular as they could be, but they’re still pretty darn popular.

Making assumptions about what’s meant, and expecting people to make assumptions about what you mean, is how problems happen. Thorough communication is the cornerstone of understanding.

In this fictional scenario of the author’s creation?

So a straw man? Or are we supposed to infer that this is an illustrative example of actual behavior?

Yes, which is why I phrased my statement as “Well, … could…” to indicate an alternative perspective. This was to illustrate that sometimes pithy reductive quips can be based on overly reductive assumptions. Maybe it is the case that a single baby is all that’s required, but maybe the author misunderstood the goal.

Well, nine women could produce a baby once a month (recovery period aside)

There should at least be an open chest which has clearly been looted already

That was a rhetorical question. Obviously, admitting it would be counterproductive.

Is it your job to sow dissent among non-Republican voters? Because it certainly seems like you’re getting paid to do it.

They’re aspects of the same thing: decentralization/federation. The idea of Web 3.0 is to transition from massive centralized services to distributed federated services. The Fediverse is on the social media side of things (displace entities like Facebook), crypto is on the finance side of things (displace entities like Bank of America), NFTs are supposed to be on the distribution side of things (displace entities like Ticketmaster).

Eugenics was an awkwardly popular movement not that long ago.

You’re voting third party in a First Past the Post election structure, so you have a fundamental misunderstanding of the specific incarnation of democracy you exist within.

That assumes that the population of these counties is significant compared to the cities though, right? These seem to be the lowest population-density counties in the state.