jas007

Climate change? Hardly. In case you aren't aware, forests periodically burn. And in areas like Southern California, which were largely uninhabitable deserts before the Colorado River was tamed and aqueducts installed, the vegetation there also burns, periodically. It's all part of the ecological process. Part of a healthy ecosystem. The process has been going on for millions and millions of years, long before humans arrived on the scene. And in case you've never lived in Southern California, the place can often go months and months without any kind or rain. Neglect the vegetation and overgrown brush, and it's. just a matter of time. There will be fires. And those fires can be especially dangerous this time of year, when Santa Ana winds are common. So, who's to blame? Fires will occur, periodically, but they can perhaps be contained, delayed, or managed with proper management. Was that done here? I don't think so.

One time, when I lived just north of San Diego, there was a fire spreading on the other side of I-5, headed my way. Fortunately, they got it under control. Some people were really scared, though. I remember seeing a lady at the local convenience store/gas station, pulling a trailer behind her car. Her horses were in it and her kids were in the car. That's all she could do. Get out of the way.

Sure. The rules based international order exists. It's the foundation of diplomacy and it works so long as everyone is playing the same game. It makes for predictability. But don't think for a minute that the world always works that way. The United Nations was founded by way of a treaty, and how is that working? Like I said, it's nice to pretend that countries will play by the rules, but that doesn't always happen, especially when a nation perceives its very existence depends on acting outside international law, Unfortunately, it happens all the time. That's reality. Trump knows that, but his hyperbole should probably be timed down. It can be dangerous.

Trump is just being Trump. He says whatever is on his mind. However, that doesn't necessarily mean most of it should be taken literally. He just talks. It's hyperbole. That's his character. And don't forget the history of U.S. foreign policy lately. Warmongers from both parties, Neocons, American exceptionalism, causing trouble around the world to effect regime change, acting outside international law when it's deemed to be "necessary." There seems to be one set of rules for America, and another set of rules for the rest of the world. And, judging by Trump's cabinet picks, I don't see much in the way of change ahead in the foreign policy arena, unfortunately, other than a recognition that the war in Ukraine is silly, unnecessary, and never should have happened. That will end with a deal and that's that. Trump is just saying out loud how things really work, Smart or not, it's hard to deny history.

Too complex? Different, perhaps, but not necessarily too complex. Not that anyone has to worry about understanding everything and how it all fits together. No one has ever done that and no one will. The only real challenge is navigating change, if that's what you want to do. Some people don't need to. Some people just don't care. They're comfortable in their own world. They have everything they need. One time I tried to show my father how to use a computer, but he just didn't care. He didn't need to use it and he had no clue. But he was fine. He was always doing something and he was happy. My grandfather was more curious about technology, but for him, that was a mixed blessing. Give hime a new gadget and the next thing you know, he'd be trying to take it apart to see how it worked. I'm pretty sure wouldn't have believed the complexity of an integrated circuit. And he would never have used a credit card or an ATM. When he had business to transact, he went to the bank. When he wanted to buy some stock, he went to the broker's office and did it in person. Anyway, he was happy and was always doing something.

Apparently, the CIA is into all sorts of weird experiments. Years ago, I used to date a girl whose father worked at the CIA in Virginia. She used to tell me stories about "remote viewing." I never took her seriously, as she was always taking about some weird stuff. Anyway, as it turns out, there really was research into remote viewing, which has now been discontinued and declassified. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stargate_Project

I'm not a troll and I'm not trying to argue. For all I know, Tesla will be making the TVs. It all sounds weird to me, but I'm not ready to call it all a marketing ploy. Time will tell. Mostly, it's nothing I worry about too much.

The TVs they're supposedly coming out with later this year. They probably won't ship to Thailand, though, or if they do they won't be so cheap.

And what's wrong with a great product, if you can get it? I'm not holding my breath, as a lot of the TVs currently on the market are more than I need, and they don't cost too much. I'm in a rented condo, and the TV that's here is OK, but a little small. I like to watch movies. If I move into a bigger place with some room, I'm going to buy something bigger. 85" or so. Believe it or not, those don't have to cost too much and the picture looks great to me.

So far, I've found this. https://elonbuzz.com/teslas-2025-smart-tv-revealed-by-elon-musk-features-and-details/

I think there's webpage with the specs. I'll try to find it.

Yep. I was curious, so I just looked. And I found out I had downloaded it a long time ago. It isn't all that interesting and isn't really the same as X. It seems slow. I guess that's why I forgot about it.

From what I saw, it'll be Starlink capable and some of the specs will be unmatched. What excited me was how inexpensive they will be. As for "installing" Twitter? Has there ever been an app for Twitter? That's all Musk really needs to do if he just wants to "spread his propaganda." Make an X app for download on Apple TV and for smart TVs. No need to make televisions.

Well, Trump seems to think otherwise. Did you watch his Mar Lago news conference? As for the so-called World Stage? That seems to be changing faster than anyone ever imagined at this point. One after another, Leftist leaders are on the way out, with their Globalist agendas in tatters. Give it six months and let's see what happens.

So long as I can walk down the sidewalk without tripping on holes and uneven pavement, I'm happy.

Yep, the raw totals were close. But that's not what matters. What matters is the electoral college vote. You surely know how that works. To elect a Democrat, enough votes would have to be flipped in certain Red states to change the outcomes there. For all we know, a white, male, Democratic candidate with kids would have changed people's votes mainly in California and New York, but not in one swing state. The original question seems to assume that some people who voted for Trump didn't vote for Harris only because they were racist, misogynist, and because she didn't have any kids. I don't think so. They didn't vote for Harris because the "Democrats" were too extreme. Their agenda was crazy. Somewhere online, there 's a video floating around made by a so-called political science "expert" woman, who recorded it after going out to buy a bottle of champagne to celebrate a Harris "victory." She was of the opinion that Harris would win because, in her mind, the only real issue for women was women's "reproductive rights," and that issue alone would put Harris over the top. After Harris lost, she recorded another video explaining why she was wrong. Those are fun to watch.

You're assuming that those who might have voted differently would be distributed is such a manner as to affect the outcome of states that might have been flipped in favor of Harris as a result. The popular vote doesn't matter. Flipping certain Red States might have mattered, but I'm not sure you can make that assumption.

Really? In other words you think Kamala lost because she was a woman of color with no kids? I don't think so. She lost because the so-called "Democrats" ventured into some sort of alternate reality a long time ago and were on the verge of destroying America. People woke up as the media lost control of the narrative, and the rest is history. The propaganda machine failed.

I didn't bother to watch the whole thing, but I did see a short snippet of Harris announcing the vote for certification. She sort of seemed happy. As if the charade was finally over and she could go back to being a nobody.

Would it make you feel better to read convoluted, obfuscatory nonsense and gibberish? If I write in what seems to be an overly simplistic fashion, it's done for a reason. KISS. Keep it simple, stupid. From my days of legal writing. Produce a bunch of dense, convoluted nonsense designed to confuse or mislead, and one of two things will happen: your audience will be immediately turned off and you'll fail to convince anyone of anything, or, they won't read it at all and they'll draw their own conclusions. So, I try to keep it simple. Clear, concise, and capable of only one interpretation. Easy to read and it works well.

I don't know what "legal templates" you've looked at. Have you looked into "Legal Zoom"? I'm not sure what their requirements are or how much they charge, but they claim you can create documents that will work in every state. And that's entirely plausible. Each state has its own probate law. Are you a legal resident of any US state or territory? Do you have property on the US, in that state or in any other state? Anyway, sometimes a will has to be witnessed. Sometimes not. A will doesn't have to be complicated. Start by looking at Legal Zoom.

It can be hard enough to walk down the sidewalk and dodge all the cracks and holes and whatnot. Having to watch out for motorcycles makes it all the worse. And some of those guys are going pretty fast.

Am I mistaken, or wasn't there a plan a few years ago to get rid of all the street vendors? Or at least all the street vendors selling food? Whatever happened to that plan? It's hard to imagine Bangkok without street vendors.

All those people are worth listening to. That's how you get a good idea of what's going on in the world. Listen to everybody. Anyway, some of what people say is nonsense. That's OK. You still gain some perspective from the whole and some understanding from the exchange of ideas. If you immediately tune out an entire group of people, you're only fooling yourself. That's why the mainstream media is so effective at propaganda. They've done a good job of demonizing the opposition. The opposition is "evil." The opposition is "dirty" The opposition will spread a "disease." We. saw that at work during COVID. The most massive and effective propaganda campaign the world has ever seen. Wasn't it the CIA that made up the term "conspiracy theory"? That was for good reason. A very effective tactic. It helps brand the opposition as just some bunch of nuts with a mental disorder not worth the time of day. In reality, they don't want people to listen to them. That would be a danger to their agenda.. So, people turn on mainstream news and they think they're getting "the truth." as that's all they ever hear.The official narrative. And then the "fact checkers" show up and we know how that works.

I am so lazy, it's almost being belief. Or at least I usually don't get too enthusiastic about cooking at home. So I end up ordering something like this pizza, from Dom's Pizza: Or maybe some fish tacos from Taco Taco Taco: