silence7

It's not a bad thing to have as a backup for a condom; the main issue is that some of the spermicides increase HIV transmission risk, so you typically don't see condoms with spermicide in the lube anymore.

It's not about understanding — it's about making nice with people who wish the South had won.

It's not about "man up" — it's about having the votes in Congress to do it. We didn't have that in 2009, when we last tried, and I'd be surprised if we have them now

For sure. I just don't expect it to be durable unless we elect Harris.

The problem is that the things he can do without congressional support can be easily overturned by the next President — and the Republicans have a majority in the House of Representatives.

The paper makes it clear that it can — and it's actually important to avoid doing things like random murder. But the kind of nonviolent acts we've seen so far aren't a problem.

They also had a null result on policy support; the main impact was activating people towards more moderate activist groups.

I don't expect commercial extraction to be limited to one area.

In practice, I see people in your situation spend their additional budget on insulation and an air-source heat pump, rather than go to geothermal.

I'm not waiting — spent the weekend in a swing state talking to voters. You can too.

1. You wouldn't want to actually use nuclear weapons
2. You'd need to actually maintain technical geoengineering for hundreds of thousands of years, eg: for something as long as time time period that modern humans have existed.

Would definitely be the right move. Very hard to do a direct ban in the US because federal law doesn't allow that — and the Republicans will control enough seats in the Senate to prevent the federal law in question from being repealed for at least the next couple years.

Starting a nuclear war is still likely far worse than even status quo.