“Picking” the lesser of two evils implies there is some kind of exclusive relationship between climate change and vandalism. As if this action had some kind of effect that counters climate change.

But it doesn’t.

Yes. Temperature range is one of the basic requirements not just for life but for all physical phenomena.

The lease isn’t the only information on which the deal is based.

It is part of the lease. She was shown a certain apartment, with certain appliances. She signed a lease for that apartment. It’s understood the lease covers the facilities in the apartment.

Honestly we probably already do. Most judges, if you said “Look the thing was there when he showed me the unit. That makes it part of the offered deal”, would back you.

I think if the air conditioner was there when she toured the unit, it’s implicitly part of the contract.

And finally, there’s air conditioning

Blowing hot air around is called “convection baking” in the US

I actually agree that nobody has a “right to air conditioning”.

But people do have a right to whatever’s been promised in a contract they signed.

This lady rented an apartment with an air conditioner. She’s paying for this apartment. The landlord isn’t allowed to just ignore requests for maintenance because they don’t feel like providing the air conditioner any more.

The air conditioner is part of the deal they agreed to, and the landlord isn’t holding up their end of the deal.

One half makes you larger, and one half makes you small. And the grilled cheeses Mommy gives you don’t do anything at all.

If they’d just turn the damn thing off for a hundred years or so we’d have no problem

In another thread someone was arguing that stonehenge is valued. And it’s the implication that’s the message.

He didn’t elaborate on the implication, but he said “What do you think people are gonna do next if this doesn’t work?”

So maybe the strategy is just attack things people value until climate change is fixed

This shit was clever and insightful for twenty minutes in 1995

If you can’t be in a library without jerking off in the shared spade, you have to go outside.

“I hate seeing homeless people trying to cope with being homeless”

This is called a number of things:

• putting words in someone’s mouth
• mis-using quotation marks
• a straw man

He didn’t say that. He said he hates to see homeless people in there jerking off and doing drugs.

Respond to that. Don’t respond to something else that so heavily distorts what the other guy said. There’s no point, other than to sacrifice anything valuable the conversation could have been into being a play about how morally superior you are.

Ugh.

There is no system under which nobody will be homeless, unless some people are kept inside by force. We can reduce homelessness, but if we don’t stop until there is ZERO then we will have gone far into the realm of cutting people’s rights down so much they can’t screw their own lives up.

I hate that this is true, but we don’t benefit from pretending (or legitimately believing) that it isn’t.

In order to have a world where people can determine their own destiny, ie in order to have a world with freedom, we must allow people to destroy themselves.

The system is badly rigged and unfair, but even the perfect system will still have some homeless people.

I don’t think the words “jerking off or doing drugs” were accidental in that comment. The request isn’t to ban homeless people from being in the library respectfully.

A rule like “no large backpacks” is bullshit, and anti-homeless. Backpacks aren’t a disruption to the library.

A rule like “no jerking off or doing drugs” is perfectly reasonable.

Only at the lowest possible resolution image of the situation.

I’m sure it’s possible to enforce a “don’t do drugs or jerk off here” rule at libraries, without destroying all forms of civic responsibility for the downtrodden.

How much did the 220 outlet and the L2 charger cost to put in? Was it a turnkey thing from an electrician or something or were you able to do it yourself?

I’m adding to this because I think it came out wrong.

I’m not using mediocre as a pejorative here. I’m saying that I used to be largely paralyzed by life, and my dreams were huge. For a while my goal was “help humanity expand into the stars”. Then it switched to “help humanity survive WW3”.

But lately it’s more like “Have enough cash on hand that I can handle two small crises back to back without losing momentum, and then get the emotional benefits from that sense of security” and “Be around people who make me feel valued and respected”.

What I’ve discovered is that those small dreams motivate me a lot more, because I can actually see how my day to day decisions can affect those things.

My favorite psychology professor always says that the path out of depression starts with “orienting yourself toward the highest good you can conceive of”. At first I thought that meant the loftiest goal I could think of.

But I realized that while I can say “Help humanity expadn into the stars” I don’t have a concrete, solid image of what exactly that means. It’s vague. It’s not an image; it’s just words.

But those smaller goals, I can actually conceive of them. I can visualize them, and see them concretely. If i try to look higher than that, to my later goals like “having a family” and “being a productive member of the community”, I can’t see them.

So this “that you can conceive of” I think it really works best when I think of it as “that I can actually visualize and feel”.