… what?

Yeah, that’s a totally fair concern and is one of the points the episode addresses. Researchers acknowledged that the definition has broadened, but they also emphasized that it reflects a better understanding of autism as a spectrum. It does make the label less specific, but it’s also helped a lot of people. Especially women and people of color. It helped them get more accurate diagnoses instead of being misdiagnosed or ignored.

Overall, it’s a stat worth celebrating as it means more people are getting the support they needed all along.

The Science Vs. podcast just did an episode on this.

https://open.spotify.com/episode/2eKgmLJZrEKTbVzCVYzp0u

Spoiler: It’s exactly as the meme describes. Autism rates are rising not because more people are becoming autistic, but because we’ve expanded the definition and improved how we recognize and diagnose it.

Nothing will beat Trump’s personal Seal of the President of the United States.

This reminds me of the Light Grenade from Mom and Dad Save the World.

I had one that turned 1/8" into it’s own radio frequency. It was really shitty but it worked!

Edit: just looked and they still sell them! https://www.amazon.com/Transmitter-Adapter-Built-iPhone-Players/dp/B076X3GSMH

Why would anyone be stupid enough to not honor them? Now, even if they backtrack, their name is mud. It’s so stupid.

Fast food and major chains have gotten absurd. I used a gift card at Red Robin a couple months back. It was $19 before tip for a dry burger and bland fries. Two bucks more could’ve gotten me a seat and meal at a five-star local place just down the street. The value just isn’t there anymore. Eating local almost always tastes better, feels better, and costs the same or less. Why settle for mediocrity when better is right around the corner?

That’s lovely. I’m my experience, tea people are special people.

Forget the serious debate videos—his supporters aren’t watching those, and even if they did, they wouldn’t care. You want to make a dent? You go after the ego.

Picture this: an endless stream of totally “realistic” phone-recorded AI videos of Trump playing golf. He lines up the putt—misses. Tries again—air ball. It’s literally an inch away now—misses again. Doesn’t blink, just traps it in, smirks, walks off like he nailed it. Over and over.

The key is subtlety. These can’t look staged or flashy—make them feel like someone’s nephew filmed it from the cart. Make it look like he’s genuinely terrible but thinks he’s crushing it.

Then blast them everywhere. Flood the algorithm. Turn his “I’m the best at golf” schtick into a punchline.

This is how you use AI to actually take Trump down—with a thousand tiny ego papercuts.

Please understand: trimming a cat’s nails is not the same as declawing. Trimming is like cutting your own nails—quick, painless, and healthy. Declawing is a surgery that removes part of the bone, like cutting off the tip of your finger. They are completely different. My cat lays in my lap and purrs when I trim his nails.

Millions of cats are born and raised indoors and never go outside. For those cats, keeping their nails trimmed is necessary. It helps prevent painful overgrown claws, reduces accidental injuries, and keeps their paws healthy. That’s not cruelty—it’s just responsible care.

Cats can absolutely stay healthy and happy indoors with trimmed nails. It takes time, patience, and positive reinforcement—treats, love, and trust. That’s not “Stockholm syndrome,” that’s training and bonding, just like with any pet.

You’re right that cats are predators by nature—but domesticated cats are not wild animals. That’s what “domesticated” means. Any animal whose natural life cycle has been altered by humans lives a different kind of life, and it’s our job to care for them in the environment we’ve created.

Trimming a cat’s nails is completely different from declawing—it’s more like giving your cat a manicure than anything drastic.

Regular nail trims are important for indoor cats. They help prevent damage to your furniture, reduce accidental scratches, and keep your cat’s paws healthy by avoiding painful overgrown nails.

It’s also a great opportunity to bond with your cat. With time, patience, plenty of treats, and snuggles, nail trimming can become a calm, positive experience for both of you. Start young if you can, and make it part of your routine—it’s well worth the effort.

One button. Endless possibilities.

!That’s why the Trump administration’s Signalgate blunder was all anyone could talk about on news shows and social media, in workplaces, even in schools, said New York University psychology professor Tessa West.

Even West’s 11-year-old son came home from school Monday and confessed that he, too, had once added the wrong person to a group chat. “Mommy I did that, I did exactly what those Trump people did,” he told her.

“For 11-year-old boys, this is the most relatable thing that the Trump administration has done, which just shows you just how ubiquitous this experience is from Slack channels to group chats,” West said. “We’ve all done this.”!<

What a trash article. It reads like propaganda. This kind of reporting is frustrating. Framing a serious security breach—like the Trump administration’s Signal group chat blunder—as relatable because “even an 11-year-old has done it” feels disingenuous at best. Using a child’s anecdote to soften the impact of a significant government mistake trivializes the issue and distracts from the consequences of the breach.

We’re not talking about accidentally texting the wrong person in a school group chat. We’re talking about high-level officials mistakenly including someone in a discussion tied to sensitive military operations. That’s not “relatable”—that’s a failure in operational security, and it deserves scrutiny, not spin.

It is always harder to build than to destroy.

Most Christians don’t read the Bible. Of those that do, most don’t understand it. Of those that do understand it, most aren’t Christians anymore.

Source: 5 years of seminary and 15 years of teaching scripture.

Go back further till you hit some John Waters movies OP.

I get where you’re coming from, and I think you’re right that geopolitics isn’t driven by morality. But saying that morality ‘matters very little’ is different from saying it doesn’t matter at all. Leaders don’t operate in a vacuum, but they also aren’t just passive reflections of material conditions. They make choices—sometimes bad ones, sometimes catastrophic ones—and those choices have consequences beyond the abstract forces of history.

The chain of cause and effect you’re talking about is real, but it doesn’t eliminate agency. If it did, there’d be no point in trying to influence anything, because everything would already be preordained by material processes. That’s not how history actually plays out. Leaders make decisions within constraints, but they still make them. The idea that Russia had no other choice but to invade Ukraine ignores the fact that plenty of other post-Soviet states also experienced economic and political instability, yet Russia didn’t invade them all. Why? Because it wasn’t just about abstract ‘material processes’—it was about specific decisions made by people with power.

You’re also implying that NATO’s role in this is straightforwardly imperialist, which oversimplifies the situation. NATO is a military alliance, and yes, it serves Western interests. But Ukraine wasn’t ‘forced’ into NATO’s orbit—it actively sought security guarantees after watching what happened in Georgia, Crimea, and Donbas. If we’re doing a materialist analysis, Ukraine’s desire to align with NATO is as much a material reality as Russia’s desire to stop it. So why treat one as natural and the other as Western manipulation?

I don’t think we disagree that material conditions shape conflicts. But I do think dismissing leadership choices as secondary, or treating NATO as the sole driver of the conflict, is just as much of a simplification as ignoring material conditions entirely. The best analysis—whether practical or historical—accounts for both.

I appreciate the depth of this discussion, and I think we might be closer in our views than it initially appears. I agree that material conditions matter—history, economics, and geopolitical realities all create the environment in which decisions are made. NATO expansion did change the security landscape in Eastern Europe, and the fallout from the Soviet collapse created complex dynamics we’re still witnessing today.

Where I think we differ is in how we understand the decision to invade. Material conditions create contexts, but they don’t predetermine military aggression. Putin’s choice to invade has resulted in catastrophic humanitarian consequences—tens of thousands dead, millions displaced, cities reduced to rubble, and countless lives shattered. These aren’t abstract policy outcomes but profound human tragedies that demand accountability.

The material analysis also cuts both ways. If we’re talking about material interests, what about Ukraine’s? Their desire for security guarantees after watching Russia’s actions in Georgia and Crimea represents a material reality too. Their concerns about Russian aggression weren’t imaginary—they were based on observed patterns.

I still maintain that Russia’s actions reflect more than just defensive security concerns. The rhetoric about “one people,” the denial of Ukrainian identity, the installation of Russian educational systems in occupied territories— they are words and actions that point to imperial ambitions beyond simply keeping NATO at bay.

Perhaps the most productive approach is to recognize both material conditions and leadership decisions as essential parts of the analysis, while never losing sight of the real human beings whose lives have been devastated by this war.

I’m not ignoring Euromaidan or the broader post-Soviet fallout—I just don’t think they justify Russia’s actions. If anything, they reinforce my argument.

Euromaidan wasn’t some Western-orchestrated coup; it was a mass uprising driven by Ukrainians rejecting a corrupt, Russia-aligned government that tried to back out of closer ties with the EU. The response? Russia annexed Crimea and fueled a separatist war in Donbas. That wasn’t some inevitable “material consequence” of Soviet dissolution—it was a calculated move to punish Ukraine for stepping out of Russia’s shadow.

Yes, many Russians support the war—but why? Because Putin controls the media, suppresses opposition, and jails or kills dissenters. When you control the narrative, you control public opinion. That doesn’t make the war justified—it just means propaganda works. The idea that Russia had to invade due to “material reasons” falls apart when you consider that no actual threat existed. NATO wasn’t invading. Ukraine wasn’t attacking Russia. The only “threat” was Ukraine choosing its own path, and Putin couldn’t tolerate that.

Putin’s actions tell the real story. He has repeatedly stated that Ukraine is not a real country and that its independence was a mistake. That isn’t about NATO. That isn’t about self-defense. That’s about control. If NATO weren’t the excuse, something else would be.

You’re right that history is complicated—but some things are simple. Invading a sovereign nation because you don’t like its direction isn’t a “material necessity.” It’s imperialism.