I like this summarized as “don’t let perfect be the enemy of good enough.”

I don’t have any revolutionary advice to give to you my friend. I’m quite a bit younger than you and I already am feeling the creep of losing touch with the speed of new technology. I think to a certain extent that is inevitable. I will say that there is a tremendous amount of survivorship bias in the videos of young people making racks off of day trading. These videos are designed to get people hooked on what is functionally gambling. No offense meant whatsoever, but if you’re living paycheck to paycheck it’s the exact type of slippery slope that can turn a bad financial situation into a ruinous one. I hope you find something that you like though and wish you the best of luck in whatever you do!

I imagine interstellar coalition governments probably function a lot more like the EU than a single country. Individual planets/solar systems would probably function under a somewhat independent governorship that is still subject to the overall laws of the federation/republic.

It’s sort of like asking “how big can a city get?” before states and nation-states existed, when in reality at some point a higher tier governance inevitably takes over. An interstellar or galactic scale government is necessarily going to be massively stratified with many levels of hierarchy in between. I think this is why many sci-fi governments at this scale are also described as bloated, unintelligible bureaucracies.

I believe it is immoral to own more than one house.

Even more disturbing is that if we have evidence of one Signal chat that must mean they regularly use non-official communications channels to discuss things like this. That means no formal record retention, no safeguards against export control and protection of classified information, and no pathway for transparency. These communications are entirely FOIA proof such that the American people have no way to even attempt to obtain information through legal channels from government officials.

I work a 9/80 currently (so 9 hours a day every Monday through Thursday and then alternating 8 hours every other Friday with a Friday off) and I have grown to love it so much I think I would have an extremely hard time taking a five day workweek job. I also think I would easily work for 10s if it were an option as a constant three day weekend would be wonderful.

I have done my own research on my productivity levels and found that I pretty much get nothing done on working Fridays anyhow, leading me to believe a 35 ish hour four day workweek would be more than sufficient to get everything I currently do done. That’s notwithstanding the fact that during each day I swing back and forth between high and low productivity too, so really something closer to like 25 hours a week of total work is accurate. So something like a certain minimum mandatory set of hours with flexible time to get your tasks done as others have suggested would be the ultimate solution.

https://lemmy.world/c/upliftingnews is a good community to add to your subscriptions if you’d like a regular dose of good news! Good news is out there, it’s just much harder to find than bad news these days.

I have been disappointed by that as well but this has been astoundingly good as far as debates have gone. The immediate fact checking is long overdue. And frankly I look forward to pointing at Trump’s extra speaking time as a bulwark against the “iT wAs BiAsEd By ThE lIbErAL mOdErAtOrS” complaints.

Understood and completely agreed with your sentiment. Obviously any time of sweetened drink is going to be less healthy than water. It is also undeniable that our corporate funded research papers have frequently resulted in and continue to result in biased and often completely non-credible conclusions.

I still assert that “safe” is a relative term, and one issue I have is the lack of nuance associated with certain headlines. For example, the IARC Group B classification that the WHO cites is the same risk for cancer as “engine exhaust or occupational exposure as a hairdresser.” So yes, excessive aspartame consumption is definitely objectively bad for you compared to drinking water, but the cancer risk is not extensive compared to many other things we are exposed to on a regular basis.

“JECFA concluded that the data evaluated indicated no sufficient reason to change the previously established acceptable daily intake (ADI) of 0–40 mg/kg body weight for aspartame. The committee therefore reaffirmed that it is safe for a person to consume within this limit per day. For example, with a can of diet soft drink containing 200 or 300 mg of aspartame, an adult weighing 70kg would need to consume more than 9–14 cans per day to exceed the acceptable daily intake, assuming no other intake from other food sources.”

Also I very much appreciate the great discussion on this!

Don’t know that I agree with your spin that this news is negative in any regard. Also, aspartame is one of the most studied food additives of all time and has been repeatedly proven safe.

Your claim that it “can have an event worse effect on blood sugar than sugar can” has also been proven false. See “Metabolic effects of aspartame in adulthood: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials” by Santos et al from 2017.

Among other conclusions, the study found that “aspartame consumption was not associated with alterations on blood glucose levels compared to control or to sucrose and on insulin levels compared to control or to sucrose.”