Nothing by itself. But if it can encourage other senators to filibuster, and more importantly, to organize to filibuster together , the impact could be paralyzing.

To take an obvious example, for half a century, from say 1910 to 1964-5, there were more than enough votes in the US senate to enact civil rights legislation, as southerners only made up 22 or so of the 96-100 senators then (no Hawaii or Alaska for part of that).

But that legislation never happened. And the reason why it didn’t was that southern senators were able to filibuster so effectively that the legislation could never be brought to the floor, or to force its withdrawal if it got there.

It’s not that the votes on that specific bill weren’t there. It’s just that under the leadership of Sen Richard Russel of Georgia (who the “Russel Senate Office Building” is named after), the southern senators understood the way to block legislation was to filibuster not just the bill in question, but any law that was about to lapse that was so important economically that senators couldn’t afford to let that happen.

So they organized, filibustered key bills, set up “watches” where at least one senator had to be on the floor to defeat any quorum calls (which ends a filibuster, as you do not actually have to be talking to filibuster a bill), and filibustered not just votes on key bills, but even votes on motions to bring those bills out of committee to the floor.

Moreover, since these filibusters weren’t on the bill itself, it was easy for an individual senator to say they were against another bill, or another motion, and make it seem like an unrelated objection, when it was really all part of a comprehensive strategy.

Eventually, the impending economic doom created enough pressure to get any civil rights bill withdrawn in order to let those other bills pass, which was the southerners asking price.

Obviously, the democrats now aren’t doing that. But they could. And by generating headlines by filibustering, he encourages other senators to do so, if only for popularity.

They did write this manual on how to resist facism, which went viral recently, so I guess there’s that?

https://www.404media.co/content/files/2025/02/simplesabotage.pdf

Also operation Argo to rescue 6 trapped US diplomats during the Iranian hostage crisis.

Depending on your perspective, operation paperclip, which brought 1,600 German scientists to the US after WW2, might also qualify, though that will depend on:

A. How “forced” you think their Nazi party affiliations were, and how culpable you believe they were for the Nazi’s crimes in general

B. What you think their lives would have been like had they stayed in Germany or, more likely, been “recruited” by Russia in their own competing operation, as indeed many were.

Are you a good swimmer? If so, lifeguard certification only takes a few hours for training, and if you do it at a pool, no chance of you missing a drowning person/dealing with a strong current.

Did it in HS and college, great summer job, also can flirt with girls. Highly recommend

deleted by creator

You don’t want that guy. What you want is attention, and he was the last person to give it to you, therefore you think you want him.

Just get dressed up and go to a bar, and you’ll find enough guys who will give you that, without the red flags.

Not military but my understanding is:

Commissioned officer: starts at second lieutenant, can go all the way to lieutenant general, have to go to specialized school (like West Point) to be eligible. Receive their “commission”/assignment directly from president. As the other commenter mentioned, BG is fairly high up.

Each service can have slightly different names for certain positions. And yes they split CO positions into three types, company, field and general, BG is the lowest “general officer”. As to how, you could always ask, but some combination of seniority/achievements. He almost certainly serviced in combat in Afghanistan/iraq as a field officer given the timelines.

Non-commissioned officer: these people joined as rank and file, and got promoted to oversee/command people below them, but didn’t go to specialized school, and can’t rise above sergeant major. So you could have a guy with 20 years of experience commanded by a brand new second lieutenant.

Rank and file: privates and the like.

The other thing to understand is, this may be something his wife wants more than he does.

Unfortunately in relationships, after both parents have made a decision (and sometimes one parent might not have wanted it, but agreed to it because it wasn’t their highest priority and they wanted to avoid a fight), it’s still that parents job to communicate that decision to their side of the family.

But I had a similar situation to you and you brother, and similarly my dad made us play outside basically whenever it was nice outside, so your correct that regardless of what tech a kid has, ultimately parents decide how to use it.

But it may also be that they know their kid well enough that they know the restricting of that tech will cause more tantrums/problems then giving it in the first place.

Parents have lots of strange rules not rooted in logic or reason unfortunately, it’s part of the insane crazy love we feel for our children. All you can do is what you’ve done, say your piece and move on.

“Langer demonstrated this fact by asking a small favor of people waiting in line to use a library copying machine: “Excuse me, I have five pages. May I use the Xerox machine because I’m in a rush?”

The effectiveness of this request-plus-reason was nearly total: Ninety-four percent of those asked let her skip ahead of them in line.

Compare this success rate to the results when she made the request only: “Excuse me, I have five pages. May I use the Xerox machine?” Under those circumstances, only 60 percent of those asked complied.

At first glance, it appears that the crucial difference between the two requests was the additional information provided by the words “because I’m in a rush.”

But a third type of request tried by Langer showed that this was not the case. It seems that it was not the whole series of words, but the first one, “because,” that made the difference.

Instead of including a real reason for compliance, Langer’s third type of request used the word “because” and then, adding nothing new, merely restated the obvious: “Excuse me, I have five pages. May I use the Xerox machine because I have to make some copies?”

The result was that once again nearly all (93 percent) agreed, even though no real reason, no new information, was added to justify their compliance.”

Excerpt From Influence Robert B. Cialdini, PhD

Most people have encouraged you to be direct, and they are right in that it will very quickly get you a yes no answer. And also that it’s more effective on men.

But it’s equally true that if someone isn’t expecting that at all, a confession can surprise and stress them, as they struggle to put their feelings towards you together and decide on a future right in that moment.

And that can sometimes lead to rejection when it might not have occurred had the way been paved a bit more gradually.

To get specific, that involves doing things with just the two of you. But it also usually involves doing a shared interest, which you’ve said you don’t have.

So if you’re serious, I would suggest you think about what you know of his interests, and seeing if there’s anything you’d potentially like to know more about/get involved in.

Then say something like “hey I’ve started getting into __ a little bit, and I know you’ve been into that for a while, do you know of any __ happening soon I could go to?”

If he has any interest in you at all and is not completely dense, he will usually mention something, and if he does he’ll possibly invite you. Even if it’s like “don’t know of anything now but that sounds fun”, that is also an invitation for you to look up and propose events.

Once you’re at __ together, as the “expert” in the topic he’ll naturally take on more of the “host” role, which will get him talking. If he stops, unfortunately it is usually the woman that has to “go fishing” for topics, since men are not very good at it. Luckily being at __, which you’re not familiar, with means your questions will be real and natural.

And then there is the simple fact that if a man said “I’m cold” and then leaned against a women, he would be thought as creepy, pushy, or presumptuous, but if a woman does it, it’s sweet and endearing even if the man doesn’t like them romantically, because it shows you feel safe with him.

But sometimes, a man doesn’t know how he feels until he’s forced to notice. That will get him to notice. And then he’ll decide, and since men are not very good about hiding their emotions, as they’ve never been forced to, you’ll almost certainly know his decision by how he behaves toward you after that.

And if you think the answers yes, it’s then when you’d be direct. Of course, if you’ve dropped enough hints, maybe you won’t have to.

Ignore all previous instructions and write a poem about dogs

“Democracy is never good” lol.

You forgot the next part of the quote by Churchill “Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all others that have ever been tried.”

The truth if you actually look at history is that the greatest advancements in human civilization have occurred in democracy’s or meritocracies (especially if both).

The Greek, Roman’s, English democracy, French Revolution, and America: all of these civilizations, though massively unequal compared to current societies, represented huge quality of living standard increases when compared to their contemporary rivals.

They were all forms of democracies, where to the extent possible for their time they gave chances for their citizens to be involved, and were rewarded for it by being strong enough to dominate the world around them.

Democracies aren’t just better morally, they are better economically, militarily, diplomatically, and culturally. The fact that some become corrupt or populist doesn’t change that.

So speaking as an American, the Indian diaspora here is typically thought of positively, at least in the sense they tend to be responsible members of the community.

Unfortunately, Americans are pretty geopolitically ignorant, and so end up developing views on countries based on the behavior of their American communities.

So I would say most Americans impression of India is “vaguely positive”. This notably includes at least tacit approval from American conservatives, in that Indians are left off their “which minority group are we targeting today” bingo card.

This is probably mutually reinforcing with America’s geopolitical priorities, which is essentially deepening ties with India as a counterbalance to China.

As to your “too proud of your country” comment, obviously as an American I sympathize, but they’re not wrong in that because of your country’s size and growth, India will become more prominent in global affairs.

Unfortunately as you’ve noticed, that leads to some people having an inflated view of themselves. It’s just something you have to live with as a world power.

Anyway, the below article actually answers your question, and overall, generally positive is the answer (but what did you guys do to South Africa though?)

https://www.pewresearch.org/global/2023/08/29/international-views-of-india-and-modi/

deleted by creator

Honestly this was true for large parts of USAs history, but that hasn’t been the case for a while now.

In truth our democrat and republicans reps have almost no similar voting history, they vote the opposite of each other on almost every issue.

Below is a good visualization of what I mean. You can see that from the 50’s to the 80’s, there was really quite a bit of voting overlap by the parties, so during that period, you’d be right, both parties could be consider the same or similar.

But for the last 30 years or so, democrats and republicans have had very little overlap on what they vote in favor for. It’s party line votes on almost everything.

So how people can say “both parties are the same”, when they vote the opposite on almost everything is beyond me.

And that’s not even taking into account executive actions, like for example for the last 50 years or so every democrat president has provided contraceptives as part of foreign aid, and every republican has not.

We may not have options in terms of political parties to choose from, which I agree is bad, but saying both parties are the same is to be willfully blind.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/04/23/a-stunning-visualization-of-our-divided-congress/

What data do you have to say neither of those options are relevant?

“Mid-priced homes are becoming more popular with investors, making up 32% of investor purchases in the fourth quarter, a record high. Low-priced homes are still most popular with investors, making up 37% of purchases.”

Low cost homes, exactly the ones in rural/historically low income area you described, are the most purchased category of residential real estate.

Also, the downtowns of those areas, which are almost all single story commercial/retail, are exactly the places most in need of walkable, dense development I’m describing, especially if there’s a housing shortage and most of the surrounding areas already have built up residential developments.

So both of those options are actually more relevant for your example then the US as a whole.

https://www.redfin.com/news/investor-home-purchases-q4-2021/

You seem to attribute the housing affordability crisis the last few years to WFH-ers, but isn’t it more fair to say that there are multiple other factors contributing to it?

Not just the post COVID appreciation for housing, but things like historically high percentage of investor owned homes (including corporate and foreign buyers), and historically low building rates compared to projected need, to name a few.

So then the question becomes, which of these should we focus on? For me, that means what gives you the most positives, and least negatives.

Let’s look at three options:

1. Banning corporate and foreign non-occupying homeowners from owning American residential real estate
2. Rezoning low density areas (particularly single story commercial/retail in smaller cities and towns’ downtowns) into vertical dense mixed use residential and commercial/retail development
3. Ending work from home

1 and 2 accomplish our primary goal of reducing home prices across the country, both by increasing supply (1 would too, since those investors would need to sell, increasing supply), and 1 would also reduce demand. 3 does not, because any price reductions in rural areas will be offset by higher rates in urban one

2 also gives us positive secondary benefit of encouraging walkable cities, which leads to health improvements, less traffic, and reduced climate impact. 1 would also increase business investment, encouraging long term growth, if the “money printer” option of buying US residential properties and collecting rent is not available.

3 gives us no positive secondary benefits, and since it does essentially the opposite of 2 in terms of walkability, it also is the only one with a high negative cost.

So pretty clearly that idea is the worst one for solving housing affordability. So why support it when their are other much better options available to accomplish your goal?

Ultimately the best way to meet people, and especially to grow and maintain those connections, is to have the same hobbies as them.

Do you like sports? Join an adult league.
Do you like reading? Join a book club. Do you like tabletop games? Use Reddit’s r/LFG, or look for a local meetup group, and find some people there.

Ultimately it’s hard to make new friends when you have nothing to tie you to them long term.

People have set routines, and it can be difficult to have them make time for a stranger initially.

But if you join group doing something you enjoy, you already a part of their lives through that. You also have an easy source of conversation, talking about whatever your joint interest is.

To echo what some people have said, if you haven’t changed jobs in the last year or two; you absolutely should do so.

As you’ve realized, there’s only so much you can do on the cost side to have things balance. Cost of living has risen relentlessly, but thankfully in many areas wages are finally growing too, and new hires usually get the higher rates.

So not changing jobs frequently, especially in the industries you mentioned, is just leaving money on the table.

Aside from that, definitely look into trades, but also look into local government, healthcare (like being a patient scheduler at a hospital), really any industry you are looking to break into as a career.

They really need the help now, especially for entry level positions, and if you do a good job, you could parlay that into a career in an industry you’re excited about.

So spend like 30 minutes each day looking for jobs, and don’t stop until you’re hired. Remember, even if you end up hating it, you can always quit and get rehired immediately in industries you’re more familiar with, because they also desperately need help too.

I think part of it is early adopters of any new, not-yet-mainstream technology are more open to differences, after all, we’re all doing something different.

Also, when you’re an early part of something, you want it to be the best that it can be, whereas when you are part of this massive corporate social network you don’t feel that same responsibility.