It’ll be interesting to see if we can find more than a correlation. This ought to be a polymarket bet… But mine would be on either ultra processed foods or microplastics.

3:31 seconds in is when she say it.

Satisfying, but verse others who believe in this it’s still disheartening.

Ship be happen’ now

I just watched his newest video and Sal’s doing it daily right now. Not much new in broad substance, but details are developing.

I went back and looked twz reported 770 missiles expended over the 9 months of their Hohthi protection. This is all missiles, so it’s unclear how much of this was offensive vs defensive, but:

Many of these weapons were used in direct defensive actions to protect commercial shipping and U.S. Navy and allied warships operating in and around the Red Sea and Gulf of Aden. While there is no price on human life and even a drone packed with explosives could severely damage an American destroyer, putting it out of action for months and possibly injuring or killing members of its crew, it’s interesting to put a price tag on what these weapons might have cost. This is becoming an increasingly important issue as the U.S. evaluates its own stockpiles and what would be needed to sustain a conflict in the Pacific against a foe exponentially more powerful than the Houthis.

Without knowing the exact breakdown of the missiles and other munitions employed during the IKECSG’s recent deployment, it is impossible to put a dollar figure on all of the weapons expended. The unit price of a single Block V Tomahawk is $1.89 million or so, so launching 135 of those missiles would have cost the Navy $255,150,000.

So stockpiles, resupply, and production becomes a big issue, beyond the astronomical cost of this.

(All for the fucking ego of a Cheeto.)

Sal’s What’s going on with Shipping? Channel did a video that adds to your points, while covering other things that happened in between too.

We don’t have the destroyers to so this, let alone the stocks to keep them full. Last time we tried something similar with the Houthi when we stood off and bring them down along the Red Sea we ran out.

The best we might be able to do is the 5 or so US flagged vessels. Apparently France is going to do the same for their vessels. All the rest of them are probably just going to wait for the War insurance to get sorted and then start running it again (like some of them are apparently).

https://www.niwater.com/media/geso5q4o/2024-ni-water-drinking-water-quality-annual-report.pdf Is the report vs those standard.

This is a comparable report from NYC. https://www.nyc.gov/assets/dep/downloads/pdf/water/drinking-water/drinking-water-supply-quality-report/2025-drinking-water-supply-quality-report.pdf

'Tis a great question and one very worth digging into. First off, I suggest getting The Big Thirst from the library. It’s a great book describing the challenge of water for several cities across the world and the processes used to make your water safe.

Second, I’d also suggest checking out some YouTube videos like this Animagraffs video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KsVfshmK0Ak. As The Big Thirst and others describe, there are a plethora of engineering techniques now to purify water on a citywide scale, and it is very much up to local utilities to decide how they do it.

Third, someone has already pointed out that there are water quality standards in N. Ireland. As others have noted, it needs to be “safe,” not “sterile.” Indeed, you actually do want some minerals in your water—otherwise it can be detrimental to your health. Drinking straight distilled water continuously, for example, is problematic because “pure” water will actually leach the minerals it encounters.

Fourth, the purity of water is ultimately about how much money is invested in purifying it. Chip companies and scientific endeavors need higher levels of water purity for some of their processes. This can be achieved through the engineering processes mentioned above, producing incredibly pure water—which is actually dangerous to drink.

Lastly, the purification of water from your swamp is a function of how much money the city is willing to spend, but it is feasible to take nearly any water and make it safe to drink with enough investment in infrastructure. As part of this, the pipes that deliver water to your house are crucial: they must remain full and pressurized (pushing clean water out, not allowing contamination in). I mention this because it’s important to understand that the infrastructure around water delivery is nearly as important as the treatment itself. (Similarly true for wastewater.)

While I applaud her bring it out on the house floor and making it public, I wonder at the general impact apart from making Trump face his responsibly directly and publicly.

For those of you who can stand it, I’d suggest reading what the conservative side is portraying it as. I say this as around 40% of the voting public seems to swallow this without question. They portray Minnesota as:

The theft of billions of dollars in welfare payments in Minnesota by primarily Somali criminals became an overnight political liability for Democratic Gov. Tim Walz and other state officials who, at best, ignored the problem. Trump has designated Vice President JD Vance to lead the fraud investigation; you can be sure that Democrat-run states like California and New York will be in the crosshairs.

So no mention of the killing, among the many other things that the guardian article did discuss.

It makes me wonder what the swing voters read and believe.

I really appreciate the TLDR, as I like to know the point before I start reading the support of it. However “legible” is a horrible word for this as precise as it might be.

Once a threat becomes legible — primarily, by an elected authoritarian beginning to act in authoritarian ways once in office — people start prioritizing democracy in a way they didn’t beforehand.

Which I would rephrase as saying: 'When politicians act like dictators, document it, yell it out, and call them out."

And even that’s to long and not direct enough.