It’s also significantly more potent making smuggling that much more efficient. Orders of magnitude more doses per unit mass.

Experts determined that the ship’s condition was stable.

Kinda weird to hear the ship talked about in the same language as a human patient in a hospital.

I just watched a YouTube video by The Operations Room on the Cologne bombing, it was the first time the allies (possibly anyone?) did a 1000-plane bombing run. Insane scale.

https://youtu.be/V5FP37kmXdQ

Isn’t that the same scenario that led to the massive Beirut explosion a few years back?

The whole argument for legalizing weed was that it would cripple the cartels.

First I’ve heard of this, and I’d consider myself a pretty big follower of drugs and drug culture. Who thought weed was lucrative for cartels? The plant you can easily grow, and is challenging to transport?

Calling it the “whole argument” is very disingenuous. People have the right to get high.

Then we have to legalize heroin? Fentanyl? Anything else?

Yeah, all of it. You can legally buy chemical analogs of just about any class of drugs because the laws simply can’t keep up. Prohibition isn’t working, and it hasn’t ever. What you’re seeing today is a result of prohibition (and prescription painkillers in the 00s, I’d argue).

The problem won’t be fixed by making things illegal. What, are you going to make opiates more illegal or something? Education and learning how to have a proper relationship with mind altering substances is the way forward, IMO.

Shoutout to erowid.org.

Assuming you’re in the US:

It’s called THCa and is the same weed you’ve been smoking your whole life. You can get ounces to your door in the mail 100% legally thanks to a poorly written Farm Bill.

The farm bill only states a certain % of THC is illegal. Well, THC isn’t on the plants in large quantities - that only exists once you heat the cannabis to isomerize it from THCa to THC. It’s not delta 8 or some weird synthetic cannabinoid, weed has always been THCa before it’s heated.

There are dispensaries all over Texas these days selling great weed with this loophole. Texas, of all places.

Why would it? It’s the bulkiest, smelliest, lowest cost drug there is. Mexican weed sucked ass too. Moving cocaine or especially ultra high strength opiate analogs is significantly more lucrative.

Making things illegal doesn’t work. Not alcohol, not drugs, not abortion. It needs to be addressed by education. The current just say no abstinence approach leaves people ill prepared for when they encounter drugs. Our relationship with drugs is fucked, currently. Altering our state of consciousness with drugs is a fundamental part of being human.

Time to rewatch The Wire season 2.

Wonder if they mistook them for Japanese torpedo boats.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dogger_Bank_incident

deleted by creator

sexomnia exists only in papers used to defend rapists

It exists, my wife has told me I’ve done it multiple times. It wasn’t to completion, I fell fully back asleep half way through, but sex was initiated. I was not conscious for the experience.

I have no opinion on this case but the phenomenon does exist.

The amateur videos of this are grim. Looks like it entered a flat spin at or near cruise altitude from severe icing, which turboprops are especially susceptible to due to their lower cruising altitude. Blancolirio, a 777 pilot who has a YT channel mostly about aviation mishaps, already has a video out.

https://youtu.be/ozinSmylTmQ

Associated Press Media Bias Fact Check Credibility: High

Credibility: High

It’s right there. credibility: high not bias: high

I agree, having alternatives to air transportation is key. Trains are second. Just banning air transportation or imposing some fees will just make people angry and, I believe, hamper progress towards reducing the amount of CO2 we’re putting into the atmosphere.

I’m all for nuclear powered high speed electric trains.

What the fuck was that?? I was hoping for some chronic grilly chee but that was an abomination. I’ve seen children make better grilled cheese sandwiches.

I just don’t see people taking vacations or seeing relatives across the country as being the problem at this point in time. I think the limited resources we have to pursue environmental changes could be spent significantly better elsewhere.

If you came up with a revolutionary technology that saved an astounding 50% of the air transport emissions, you’ve eliminated 1% of total global emissions.

If you come up with a much more mundane technology that saves only 10% of electricity generation emissions, you’ve eliminated >2% of total global emission, more than twice the impact.

Limited resources would be much more effectively applied starting with the largest polluters.

I don’t think kneecapping air travel, pissing off many normal people, for little environmental benefit, is the way to get people to start seriously caring about emissions. It’s just going to fuel more reactionary bullshit and people completely missing the point, IMO.

As a side note, ships are way more efficient than trucking. Despite the scary numbers they put out, they also haul an insane amount of cargo.

The way I see it, you’re taking away things people enjoy for a minuscule impact on climate. This will just piss people off for little benefit, and it’s not how you get people on board with the big changes we need to address the worsening climate. It’s like having to use shitty straws when industry is pumping gigatons of shit into the atmosphere. I believe the money pressure on airlines to use more efficient engines is actually doing a decent job at incentivizing efficiency in the air sector; it’s elsewhere that needs to be addressed harshly.

I disagree. Electricity generation and industrial processes are emitting many times more greenhouse gases than air travel. If you eliminated all emissions from electricity generation tomorrow it would make a massive difference, far exceeding the 2% of air traffic. Looking at an EPA source electricity generation is 25%, industry is 23%, and transportation less air transport is 26%.

https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/sources-greenhouse-gas-emissions

I stand by my point; even if you eliminated all air traffic tomorrow it would barely make an impact. Efforts are best focused elsewhere that would have more of an impact on climate and less of a negative impact on people’s lives.