It seems as if he can do it up until election day. The hitch is that Vance has to step down, but I can’t imagine that he’d resist if, behind closed doors, Trump told him to beat it.

I am not an expert on presidential election rules, though, so if you have a different source saying that he can’t, I’d appreciate a link. And, no, “9 News” is not an ultimate source of truth, but I didn’t find anything that said otherwise.

I’ve had an Aeropress for about a decade, and for the price I think it’s a great tool to have in the cupboard. It has positives and negatives.

On the plus side, it’s portable, fast, and makes a single serving.

On the downside, it’s single serving, and it produces mediocre cups (IMO, YMMV).

I use mine to make my wife’s once-weekly decaf, and when I run myself out of cold brew and am not in the mood for an espresso drink. Maybe 5x a month. I’m really glad I have it; I’d be unhappy if it were the only thing I had.

If you do get one, look on YouTube for best Aeropress method. Aeropress runs a competition and declares a winner for best method; the current winner is a rather fussy inverted method - but given the design, “fussy” for an Aeropress really isn’t hugely different in effort from Hoff’s “simplified” method. It’s a pretty simple process and you really have to go out of your way to make it hard, unlike pour-over which can be fractally and infinitely fussified.

OK, let’s look at only the effort, then.

“Effort” is energy. Whether on a bike, in an EV, or in an ICE vehicle, it takes energy to stop and then accelerate. The arguments in favor of Idaho stops applies equally to all vehicles: if the study does prove it increases safety by making drivers more paranoid - and it’s not clear that it does, as others have pointed out - then it applies equally to all conveyances. Drivers being more careful at stops because anyone else could be legally rolling through a stop sign applies whether it’s a bicyclist or a semi truck. If the argument is about less energy use, then the argument is even stronger for cars because it’s far more energy expensive for them to come to a complete stop than it is for a bicycle.

Basically, if Idaho stops are good for bikes, they’re even better for cars. If they’re legal for bikes, they should be equally legal for cars. But the study is flawed, and before we legalize rolling stops or drive-through-red legal, we’d need far more, and better, studies.

As an aside, we now know that you’re going to burn about the same calories whether exercising or not. Calories not burnt in exercise get used by the body to produce fat and to overdrive expensive biological processes, contributing to disease. The difference in total energy consumed through reduced food intake by legalizing rolling stops is negligible; it’d have almost zero environmental impact.

F-Droid

Most of the apps I have and use are installed via Droidify. The ones that aren’t are company apps, like banking or airline. I could just used the web sites for those; they’re only conveniences.

My phone isn’t rooted, and I didn’t read the article so I don’t know how this will affect me. If push comes to shove, I’ll simply bite the bullet and get a phone I can install Linux on next time, regardless of how polished for daily driving it is.

I think John F. Kennedy qualified; he’s been practically deified since his assassination, and his supporters were MAGA-level enthusiasts. Just the sheer level of conspiracy theory around his assassination, missing from all other assassinations - successful or attempted - is a good indicator. Even the attempted Trump assassination, which generated considerable tin-hat response, is now almost completely forgotten; certainly, nobody’s talking about it in mainstream forums.

In my opinion, Kennedy was an incredible president and great statesman, but yeah, I think you could reasonably claim there was a cult of personality around him.

But in an emergency, him being able to stab that button would save 2-4 seconds, which could save the ship. It sends the ship into a series of maneuvers, and the pilot takes over as soon as he can.

Anyway, I’m just saying, if transporting things could be automated to a single button push, there are a ton of other things that could be, too.

+100 on roundabouts. We have not nearly enough in the US, although they’re becoming more popular. A little troublesome for cyclists, though, because cars never stop. It’s a worst-case situation for bikes.

I live in Minneapolis, which is graced with 98 miles of bike lanes and 101 miles of off-street bikeways and trails. When industry turned from blue to more white collar last century, they tore out all of the old railway lines and converted it to paths. It’s the most incredible bicycling in the US, bar none. “Share the road” isn’t an issue, because you can get nearly anywhere in the greater metropolitan Twin Cities in dedicated bike paths, often without ever having to share a street with cars, except to cross.

I’m in a closed suburban neighborhood; within two miles are still farms and horses. Yet I can get on my bike, ride 5 blocks through the neighborhood (OK, with cars for that part), get on a Rail Line (they’re still mostly named after the rail lines they used to be), ride to a park, through it, onto another line, and all the way up into the nearest town 5 miles away to an organic grocery store. I have to cross 1 road on that entire line, and along a road-ajacent bike path for a half mile. And I could ride all the way across the Cities to a suburb on the far side - 47 miles - on dedicated bike paths. Some of those are bike lanes, but still; I’ve lived here for 7 years now, and it still blows my mind. The network is truly incredible, and something to be proud of. Most of the native cyclists, from the online bitching I read, have no clue how good they have it.

Many cyclists here - the spandex & clip-shoe types, still ride on the road with the cars, even when there’s a perfectly good, paved bike lane next to them; I chalk that up to basic Midwestern passive-aggressiveness, but I’ll grant that maybe there’s a good reason for it.

Anyway, that kind of strayed off the topic of round-abouts, but if you’re a cyclist, Minneapolis is one of the best cities in the world in which to live.

Yes! I read something recently about how, while making reading and writing ubiquitous was an unarguable net benefit for humanity, it did irreversible damage to oral traditions.

People used to tell fairy tales to their kids from memory. Now, we read them books. I was discussing this with my in-laws; the 30% of us who never had children weren’t able to recite more than a few lines of more than a couple nursery rhymes. You just forget stuff over the years.

Don’t get me wrong: I’m a huge fan of books. I love reading. But we’ve also lost something in the process.

No sympathy for the environment, huh?

With drivers decelerating and stopping at lights, then revving up to move quickly when lights go green, peak particle concentration was found to be 29 times higher than that during free-flowing traffic conditions. (https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2015/02/why-traffic-lights-are-pollution-hotspots/)

In a city the size of Atlanta, 269,000 tons of CO2 emissions could be prevented, equivalent to the CO2 absorbed by a forest 3.3 times the size of Atlanta, according to Inrix. (https://www.greencarreports.com/news/1135482_poorly-timed-traffic-lights-add-to-greenhouse-gas-emissions-here-s-an-estimate-of-how-much)

That latter article is talking about how many tons of CO2 could be reduced just by better optimizing traffic in the city so that fewer cars hit red lights.

No argument, getting rid of cars would have the biggest positive impact, but failing that, optimizing lights for cars, while not helping cyclist safety, would be a much better investment if we want to reduce pollution. Idaho stops for cyclists from the OP post would actually be detrimental to the environment based on the conclusions from the study: that allowing it makes drivers more cautious, implying more full stops, more time idling, and more CO2 produced per car trip.

I get the joke, and ha ha.

However: it’s been a long time since I’ve watched through TNG, but in TOS operating a transporter was a bit of an art, requiring skill. Like piloting the ship. It wasn’t a “push a button” exercise; it was reading meters, adjusting variables, acquiring locks… and frequently, something would interfere that required real work on the transporter operator which could result in loss of the transported persons. You wanted a skilled transporter operator if you were the one being transported. I don’t recall it having changed much by TNG; transporting was skilled labor, and experience counted. It wasn’t a fully automated “push a button” operation.

Not always, but often it was a senior engineer operating the transporter when bridge crew were being transported, especially in hostile situations.

I can appreciate the premise of this series; they’re funny and creative. When it gets to this level, the dissonance distracts me from the humor :shrug:.

Edit: no, really. Like, operating a transporter was always portrayed a little like playing a musical instrument. It makes less sense than Picard being able to raise shields or set alert levels from his chair with one of his buttons, than having to tell someone to “go to red alert.” Why didn’t Picard have an “evasive maneuvers” button? Transporting has to be at least as complicated as targeting phasers or torpedoes, right?