Quick counter: lower kelvin lights are terrible for color reproduction. Pure sunlight is around 5000K, and has a CRI (color rendering index) of 100. Switching to warmer (lower kelvin) lights is going to also alter your CRI, and will change the way that you perceive colors. If you need high color discrimination, that's going to be bad.

For outdoor lights, in most cases that's not a problem.

Usually. In most cases, you aren't going to notice just how much the colors have shifted, because your brain automatically adjusts. Youre perception of color is usually how colors appear relative to other things; you will see a red as red because your brain is comparing it to other objects with a known color. OTOH, if you're taking photos under poor lighting conditions, you'll see a significant shift in color. If you've ever taken film photos under fluorescent lights, you'd see that everything looked sharply green, when you don't perceive them as being green at that moment. (Digital cameras often make color adjustments, and the sensors are often not as sensitive as film can be.)

Going to an extreme, if you use a red filter on a light source, all colors are going to end up looking brown and grey; switching to red lights does the best at minimizing light pollution and loss of night vision, but at the cost of most color information. That's not bad, just a thing to consider.

First: How do you reconcile that view with the idea that animals also experience the world as people do with the idea that animals kill and eat other animals? Bears, for instance, are roughly as intelligent as a kindergartener, and yet happily kill and eat any other animals that they can. Pigs and crows are also omnivorous, and will eat any source of meat that they come across. They can all likewise avoid killing if they choose, yet they don't. Are they immoral? Or does morality only apply to humans? (Even animals that we traditionally think of as herbivorous are opportunistic meat eaters.)

Second: What would you propose replacing animal products with, when there are no alternatives that function as well? What about when the alternative products also cause greater environmental harms?

Third: So you would not have a problem with, for instance, hunting and eating invasive species, since those species cause more harm to existing ecosystems than not eradicating them would? What about when those invasive species are also highly intelligent, e.g. feral pigs? Or is it better to let them wreck existing ecosystems so that humans aren't causing harm? To drill down on that further, should humans allow harm to happen by failing to act, or should we cause harm to prevent greater harm?

Fourth: "Exploiting" is such an interesting claim. Vegans are typically opposed to honey, since they view it as an exploitative product. Are you aware that without commercial apiaries, agriculture would collapse? That is, without exploiting honey bees, we are not capable of pollinating crops?

Would you agree, given that all food production for humans causes environmental harm, that the only rational approach to eliminate that harm is the eradication of humanity?

...And how exactly do you think people are going to be able to eat meat otherwise? Or have dairy, eggs, wool, etc.? Do you think that people should e.g., raise chickens in the city?

And that's ignoring the small obligate carnivores that make up most of the pets in the world.

Hey, I'd rather hunt my own food too, but we no longer live in tribal or feudal societies where you can reasonably expect to engage in animal husbandry yourself.

"Truth" is a matter of conclusions and meaning, not of facts. Factual information would be something like--and this is an intentionally racist argument--53% of the murder arrests in the US come from a racial group that makes up 14% of the population. This is a fact, and it can be clearly seen in FBI statistics. But your conclusions from that fact--what that fact means--that's the point of rhetoric and logic. Faulty logic would make multiple leaps and say, well, obvs. this means that black people are more prone to commit murder. A more logically sound approach would look at things like whether there where different patterns in law enforcement based on racial groups, what factors were leading to murder rates in racial groups and whether those factors were present across all demographics, and so on.

Not strictly necessary. If his parents were US citizens--and they aren't--then it wouldn't matter where he was born. Kind of. I think that there might be residency requirements for children of US citizens that are born abroad, e.g., if your parents are expats and you live all your life in another country, you might not be a citizen, but it's complicated. You'd def. want to contact an immigration attorney if that was the case.

BUT...!

The point is that Musk, since he wasn't born to US citizens, and since he wasn't born in the US, isn't eligible to run for president.

It's an open question as to what happens if he ran anyways, and how votes would be tabulated, etc. It would get messy, but I don't think that it's ever happened that someone ineligible has run for president and won any significant amount of the vote.

‘Cities should be better designed so that we don’t have to use cars’

...Which I agree with. And it's incredibly frustrating to me that, on the one hand, Republicans actively don't give a shit about sprawl, and on the other hand, Democrats don't want to ruin the charm and character of their lovely urban single-family neighborhoods with half acre plots of lawn in order to build dense housing that can make light rail economically viable. E.g., the people that should be on board with this shit talk a good game until it's their own neighborhood.

I recognize my own hypocrisy here, because I moved to a rural area to get away from a city, and I am now finding that it isn't rural enough because I can sometimes hear my closest neighbors. I just want to live in a shack like Ted... :(

As far as pay goes, doing from web development to dispatch is (probably) going to be a pretty big step down in most cases. Going from warehouse to EMS dispatch is probably going to be largely a lateral move (although likely with better benefits, if you're working directly for a municipality).

As far as my own pay rate is concerned, I would be fine with the amount that I was paid if it was annually adjusted for inflation and cost of living. As it stands, I make less money--in terms of purchasing power--now than when I started five years ago.

It really depends on where you are though. Much like other public policy debates, a lot of this comes down to where someone lives. People that live in dense urban areas can very reasonably go without cars, and trains (specifically light rail) make a lot of sense. Once you get out of urban areas, suddenly trains don't make any sense at all, and the ability to realistically take public transportation evaporates.

This is compounded by urban planning that doesn't prioritize dense housing. Everyone says that we need more and better housing, but no one wants high rise apartments and condos in their neighborhood of single-family homes. That ends up leading to the kind of urban sprawl that makes public transportation impossible to work. Until zoning is taken out of local hands--so that wealthy communities can't prevent high-density housing--you aren't ever going to see this kind of thing change. (BTW - this is overwhelmingly happening in the US in communities that have a Democratic supermajority; that's why housing is so expensive in California, because new housing isn't being built.)

Depends on the disagreement. "I don't like shoes that have separate toes". Yeah, okay, that's your choice, I love my VFFs anyways. "I think Jews should be murdered", no, sorry, you don't get to have an opinion about the rights of other people to exist and occupy space.

First: Dispatch pays shit.

Second: the PTSD is usually a bigger problem than the depression, since you're going to hear people die as you are trying to talk to them.

...Why should we be concerned about Putin saving face? This is his fuck up, and he was given ample opportunities to put the brakes on before he ever invaded.

It's not that simple. The fabric most commonly made from bamboo is rayon, and rayon can be made from any cellulose fiber. Most rayon processes are actually pretty awful; they produce a lot of waste that's not great for the environment. Rayon--regardless of the source of the cellulose--is weaker than cotton, and tends to tear very easily when wet. You can process bamboo in a way that is much more environmentally responsible, but then you get a fiber that's more like linen rather than cotton. But very little bamboo fabric is made that way.

Overall, hemp is probably the most environmentally friendly fiber out there. It's not perfect, but it requires less pesticides, can be used as part of crop rotation (for the few farmers that do rotate crops), and needs less water to grow. It also grows in more climate zones. The fibers are harder to work with, and water is usually required to process them to a useful state, but you get very long staple fibers that are quite strong.