Well yeah, 10 minutes without water can definitely be lethal under the right circumstances too if you are already only 10 minutes away from dying from dehydration. I’m just saying that lying mostly still in a sunless ravine in autumn in France for 72 hours, while it’s raining, is not peak conditions for quick death from dehydration. And in any case, all I’m really saying is that claiming the guy survived by drinking the wine, meaning he would have otherwise died from dehydration, is not a supoortable conclusion and is just there to make the headline more fun.

“They are so powerful that they no longer tell lies” isn’t a take I think human history would support.

六四天安門事件

Naw come on, China’s not known for their extreme degree of control over what they’ll allow their citizens to see or post online, that’s just wild talk man. They certainly don’t have enormous human and technological infrastructures dedicated to making sure that their internet is squeaky-clean and government-approved for all their citizens who they totally trust.

Well I’d watch out from posting anything like this unless you have a degree in Political Science from an approved institution. You might accidentally influence me and get fined!

Needing the Chinese government’s blessing of your online activities, is, I totally agree, very un-American.

Surface-level, seems good idea. In practice, it depends entirely on who gets to define an “influencer”, what is a “serious topic”, what activities meet the threshold of “speaking on” that topic, and which universities’ degrees will be respected and which won’t. It seems like a very flexible framework that their government could use to remove nearly any person from any platform for any reason. If I post “fruit is good for you” on a social platform and someone else sees it, that falls under these rules as I understand them. I anticipate selective enforcement of these rules against those not aligned with the CCP, in fact the rules seems to be specifically written with that in mind.

I think republicans don’t care at all what the majority thinks. They understand fully that our Federal system is rigged from top to bottom to give rural landowners disproportional voting power. So you can just lie your ass off to the 30% of your base that is ride-or-die, and as long as that 30% happens to live in the right areas of the right swing states nothing else matters.

I feel like three days isn’t enough time to die from the absence of wine, but then again I’m not French.

It’s just funny the way the headline is written. I’m assuming they meant more along the lines of “survives 3 days while drinking wine” not “survives 3 days by drinking wine” lol because unless you are starting out extremely dehydrated already, then a 3-day dry fast is absolutely not going to kill you.

There are always going to be monsters in the world, but they don’t have to be in power over us unless we never reform the systems that allowed them to come to power in the first place.

Bring back the ATC union!

ITT: Some people would rather face privation than compromise their morals, some would not. Saved you some time.

I’ve always thought it was funny how much of this list is basically like good governance and double-checking things and involving multiple people when decisions are made. You can really read between the lines that the writers believe a strongman CEO type who just does shit is vastly more dangerous than a group of individuals who have to find consensus before acting.