Why not just compare the model 3 to an 18-wheeler then? Those weigh way more. Would have made his point better.

And it’s a completely meaningful comparison, as long as you throw away the fact that different vehicles are used for different things.

A model 3 to an f150 is absolutely apples and oranges.

Do you do those things because you truly get enjoyment out of them, or are they simply your drug of choice to help you cope through to the next day?

Those are all things that can be enjoyed in a healthy way certainly, but if it’s just “wake up, work, binge internet, sleep,” every day, then I’m afraid you have a problem. Maybe not a full blown addiction, but at least an extremely unhealthy coping mechanism for some deeper underlying issues.

This is something that you can work on though. Ideally with the help of a professional therapist who can help you identify why you feel the need to cope in this way and help you start breaking those destructive patterns in your life.

You say you don’t like anything or give up on everything, but what does that look like? I assume that you don’t spend 8+ hours every day staring at a blank wall. You must do something to fill your time.

But if you are truly finding it difficult/impossible to be interested in the world around you, then your issue isn’t that you don’t have a girlfriend my dude. It sounds like you’re suffering from pretty severe depression.

And I hate to break it to you, but untreated mental illness is definitely a mood killer, and not just with the ladies. You’re gonna need to get yourself into a better place, or you’re gonna drive more than just romantic partners away.

But I’ll tell you, you’re awfully fatalistic for 35. Women tend to pretty holistically prefer guys in the 33-40 bracket. You’re not past your prime in the slightest. A little self confidence and a little investment in the world around you, and I think you’ll find that you will attract people no problem.

And hey, maybe I’m wildly off base. I know I’m making a lot of assumptions based off a very small paragraph. And maybe I’m reading you super wrong. If so, I apologize.

One thing to keep in mind though. The idea of a relationship and sex you have in your head? That’s a fantasy. Both are great things certainly, but when I was younger I feel like I built them up to be something deifying in my head. That once I had them, all my greatest desires would be met, and that life would be finally “complete” for me.

Understand that relationships are work. Fulfilling work, but work nonetheless. They require just as much “sticking to it” as any hobby that you haven’t stuck with, if not substantially more. And let me tell you, you’re absolutely not going to want to do it all the time. It requires a lot of dedication and perseverance.

And don’t build up sex to something more than it is. Its great, certainly, but I promise you’re putting it on a higher pedestal in your head than it deserves.

But all that to say, right now, you’re in love with the idea of a relationship, not the reality of one. I’m confident that you’d find the reality to not be what you’ve dreamed of it. And the problems and struggles you have in your life are rarely made easier by adding more work and responsibilities.

Take care of yourself and get to a point where you love yourself and the world around you as it is, and I think you’ll find that the rest of this will kind of take care of itself.

What about it being mandated makes it unethical?

Is it the “military” part of it? Cause I think that neither of us are proposing this as a “fight and die” thing.

If it’s just the mandate in general, would you say taxes are unethical? It’s the government taking a portion of the fruits of your labor for civic gain.

Is mandatory schooling unethical? It’s the government mandating what you do with your life in large part between the ages of 6 and 17.

I just fail to see what makes this meaningfully different from any number of things that we already happily accept.

I mean, I still prefer my pitch to yours, but I wouldn’t be sad with your idea either.

I don’t think your pitch really combats the “people won’t actually want to do the work” issue. I think in either example you’ll have a lot of people who are “just here so I don’t get fined,” as it were.

But I think you’re overstating that issue in either case. Will it have that issue, sure. But so does the military writ large. Does it impact efficiency, sure. But making an efficient, well oiled machine isn’t exactly the point.

But other than that, reading your proposal again, I kinda think that the only thing that makes your proposal different from mine is the mandatory nature of the service.

The benefits you outlined are commensurate with the lower enlisted ranks in the military, so like, yeah, that’s what I’m proposing I guess.

I think the benefits of forcing people to leave their bubbles justifies the forced nature of mandatory service. It a means of helping young people escape cycles of abuse, and exposing them to other cultures. It’s also a great equalizer, in that it effects poor and rich alike, where your system ends up just admitting poor people who are desperate (not unlike the military as it stands.)

I’d also be open to having a program option where you can defer up to 5yrs to pursue a college degree if it’s in a relevant field (civil engineering, etc) and do your mandatory service afterwards utilizing those skills. The program still pays for that college time but gets relevant use out of you at the end. This prevents people who know what they want to do from having to delay and gives them relevant job experience right out of the gate as a resume builder.

I actually kinda support a mandatory civil service? Hear me out.

First, while I think structuring it like the military makes sense from an organizational standpoint, I think the focus would be on civil works projects. Maintaining national parks, infrastructure projects like federal interstate system improvements, etc.

This would serve as a way to get a big influx of money and labor into these large scale infrastructure projects in a way that’s bipartisan. The Republicans would like it because it’s cheap and they support mandatory military service. The Democrats would like it because it’s a big public works project that creates jobs and builds out infrastructure.

I think it would also be a unifier and help build a sense of national identity and break people out of their insular bubbles. They say travel is the antidote to bigotry. This would get people from all parts of this nation travelling around and intermingling. The son of a clansman from Arkansas would be exposed to, and have to work closely with, queer people from SoCal. The young gang member from Detroit would be able to get away for a few years and perhaps reinvent themselves. The son of the billionaire will have to work hand and hand and side by side with the kid raised penniless in the foster system.

It gives people a precious few years after highschool to see the nation and not have to make huge decisions about their future careers at 16 years old. It can expose them to different fields of work, and teach them skill to best prepare them for their futures.

All in all, I think a system like this could do a lot of good, both for the people in it, and for our nations failing public works.

Yeah, I’d be interested in how many people go to the inauguration of other countries heads of state.

Like, my best guess is that it’s a dig at, like, Gov Abbott, but I agree that I don’t think I’d expect him to, even if he was a Democrat.

So, I’m from Alabama and my dad worked for the state. While the holiday is terrible, it has a dope as hell placement.

They always put it on the first Monday in June, so it’s always the week after Memorial Day.

As such, state offices basically shut down for a week, since everybody takes the Tuesday to Friday after Memorial Day off, since 4 days of leave gets you a 10 day stretch of no work.

Not saying it’s good, but it’d be hella unpopular to repeal, and not cause people care about Jefferson Davis, lol.

See, I feel like your whole post could be summarized as, “some people’s mental illness makes them unable to work and earn money, so they’re too poor to afford treatment, and therefore the morally correct thing is to just let those people kill themselves.”

And while I don’t think that’s exactly what you meant, it’s how it comes across. Almost all of your points are some variation of who’s gonna pay for their treatment and take care of their physical needs.

And I would strongly argue that the answer is instead to have more robust social safety nets to cover those needs. Allowing people to kill themselves as the solution is hella dystopian.

But, I’m not saying that this is 100% always right. This is a hard issue with no clear answers, and I am absolutely not minimizing the pain of mental illness. My point is that mental illness is much less understood than physical illness, and I wouldn’t trust any diagnosis that said the condition could never be resolved. In the same way that I would be loathe to euthanize someone with a physical illness that has an acceptable chance of being transient, I’m loath to do the same with most if not all cases of mental illness. Especially if the person is otherwise very young/healthy.

I think the question is one of balance for me personally. Where do you draw the line?

Like, this person seems to have been in a pretty long queue and had a lot of time to evaluate, but is that denying her dignity? Should there be a waiting period, or is that denying someone healthcare?

I think we would all agree that we shouldn’t allow an 18yo who just broke up with their first SO to decide to have a doctor help them unalive themselves, right?

Is the three and a half years of waiting and treatments that this woman has undergone too much? Not enough?

I’ll admit that it feels bad to me to allow a 29yo to go down this particular path. People who are seeking death are rarely in the kind of headspace where I think they are able to meaningfully consent to that?

And this feels meaningfully different than the case of a 90yo who’s body is slowly failing them. This is an otherwise healthy young person.

Idk, there are no easy answers here. Bodily autonomy is important, but so is helping people not engage in extremely self destructive behavior. If we didn’t have that imperative, fire departments wouldn’t try and stop people from jumping off bridges, right? Where is that line? I don’t know, and I wouldn’t want to have to make that call.

Yeah, it can for sure. Definitely worth mentioning. Gotta watch what interface is set as the default router, or you’re bound to have a bad time. That said, the same is true with his originally proposed solution of pushing a trunk port to the VM, so it’s not any worse in that regard.

But yeah, full agreement on the correct solution. Keep it simple.

I wouldn’t let every VM have an interface into your management network, regardless of how you implement this. Your management network should be segregated with the ability to route to all the other VLANs with an appropriate firewall setup that only allows “related/established” connections back into it.

As for your services, having them on separate VLANs is fine, but it seems like you would benefit from having a reverse proxy to forward things to the appropriate VLAN, to reduce your management overhead.

But in general, having multiple interfaces per VM is fine. There shouldn’t be any performance hit or anything. But remember that if you have a compromised VM, it’ll be on any networks you give it an interface in, so minimizing that is key for security purposes. Ideally it would live in a VLAN that only has Internet access and/or direct access to your reverse proxy.

I feel like you’re taking a bit of a dissonant position here, no?

If it would be a moral tragedy to kill a cat and eat it, why is that not true for a cow? If life eats life, it’s not murder for me to kill and eat the cat, correct? So why is it a moral evil if killing and eating the cow is not?

I think you’re saying that this is just one of the “fucked up” stances that society has taken? But then why participate in it?

I’m fine with either answer. Either “eating meat is fine because animal life is less valuable than people’s dietary needs/preferences,” or “vegetarianism is the only moral option, as all life is equally valuable,” but it seems to me like any answer in the middle is hypocrisy, no?

Haha, we responded at like the same time lol. Wild.

And fair on all counts, but it does seem at odds to an “a life is a life” position, no?

Like, I’d assume you would be more upset if they were farming humans for meat than you are that they raise chickens and cows for meat, no?

And are you against all farming, or just factory farming? If an old school farmer raises a cow in a field, and then kills and eats it, is that acceptable?

And are fish’s lives not valuable? Less valuable than a chicken’s or a cow’s? It’s still a life, no?

I’m truly not trying to be combative. I’m actively trying to understand how to jive these two positions.

Fair. I’d be curious how you square that with the idea that “a life is a life”?

I don’t mean that in an accusatory way. It just seems like an inherent contradictions to me.

And to be clear, not that you’d save your cat over a stranger or enemy. Like, I know people who would save inanimate objects before either because the emotional connection is that strong

I mean more in the abstract that human and animal life are of equal value.

Like, would you support the farming of people to sell their meat at the grocery store? I’d assume not, but then it feels like a contradiction to me, and I’d be genuinely interested to hear how you square that circle.

I feel like the idea that an animal life is worth less than a human life is demonstrably true at a societal level though, right?

Like, we don’t sell human parts at a grocery store to eat, and I feel like people would call it a moral tragedy if we did.

If an animals life is equivalent to a humans, then meat is in fact murder, no?

Yeah, I didn’t mean it as a jab. I just thought it was an interesting assertion that “a life is a life” in this context. Seemed a strong stance, and I wondered how far they carried it.

People have gotten weird about animals over the years. I adore my cat, don’t get me wrong, and would do everything in my power to save them, but like, it is still an animal at the end of the day.

In scenario one I can see saying cat if you actually wanted your worst enemy to die. Like, if you were fine with killing them without the cat in the balance, then yeah, of course.

But otherwise it’s the person, right? Animals have lower moral value than people, right? I mean, I’d be curious what percentage of people saying that they’d save their cat are vegetarian/vegan?

Just out of curiosity, are you vegetarian/vegan?