Kepabar

It's not even about that.

Like 99% of women have hit menopause by 55, and the number of births for mothers over 50 with no medical intervention in the conception process is extremely low. So low that Wikipedia has an article detailing specific women it's happened to.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pregnancy_over_age_50

This wouldn't be a huge deal, except a major plot point is that it was an accidental pregnancy neither of them planned for. So it's not like she was getting any kind of fertility treatment.

While not impossible it just makes Jacks conception extremely unlikely

Fuck yeah, go watch Picard S3.

It was a fun ride.

You don't really need to watch the other two seasons first if you don't want to; the only thing you won't have is the backstory on why the hell Picard knows Seven and who Seven's kinda girlfriend is.

Right, Jack is the result of Picard and Beverly finally getting together after the events of Nemesis and Insurrection.

Now, that does make Beverly 55+ when she had him. But future medicine and all that I guess?

?

She had no other children at this time.

If referring to Jack, he wasn't born yet.

Sure, like I said, there is going to be harm the black market creates.

I still feel there is a good chance for a net positive here.

So there is already a thing with Windows 11 where you can, as part of a Microsoft 365 subscription, upgrade your Windows 11 machine from Pro to Enterprise.

The idea of having the base OS be a subscription is really just a stones throw away.

... but the Pro -> Ent activation process is really a PITA and often randomly PC's will revert back to Pro after they've been ugpraded, so I guess we'll have fun with that.

prohibition doesn't work

My first gut response was 'We should outlaw murder, I bet that'd stop murder from happening!'.

But as hilarious as it is, lets ignore the hyperbole.

The fact is that laws never stop all the activity they are intended to prevent. If they did we wouldn't need a court system.

No, the question is does the law do more good than bad for society?

Smoking causes 480,000 extra deaths yearly according to the CDC.

And smoking related illness costs around $300 billion annually in the US.

As we both agree, outlawing the sale will not prevent 100% of usage. But it will almost certainly prevent some usage.

And I agree that a black market will form and that black market will cause some societal damage.

So the question is, will the affects of the black market created by prohibition do more damage to society than the reduction in existing societal damage that we should see from prohibition?

Considering the above statistics, it may be worth the gamble.

I'll note that you have nothing to refute with.

There is no oxymoron.

Smoking is harming oneself.

Selling is harming another.

They are not equivalent.

I would argue that society should reserve the right to punish individuals who harm others for their personal benefit.

And I would argue that selling a physically addictive substance that directly causes harm with no benefit to the user for personal profit is causing harm.

So while I don't support arresting people for smoking, I 100% so support arresting people for selling.

Of these I've watched 8 completely:

• Battlestar Galactica.
• Parks and Rec.
• 30 Rock.
• Chernobyl.
• Game of Thrones.
• Deadwood.
• Halt and Catch Fire.
• Bojack Horseman

6 others I've started and gave up on part way through:

• The Last Airbender.
• Atlanta.
• Better Call Saul.
• Breaking Bad.
• Veep.
• Reservation Dogs.

Of the rest, half of them I've never even heard of.

I guess I don't have good taste in TV?

I do have a fear of something like this happening and do not let my cat into the room when I'm working for this reason though.

I could believe it.