Her number one issue currently is stopping an ongoing Genocide.

What tangible steps has she taken to do so? If she’s unable to take any because she doesn’t hold an elected position, and she truly believes Democrats won’t do anything, then her top priority to stopping the genocide should be winning any elected position. Her utter mismanagement of the Green party suggests that is nowhere near her goal.

You’re still not addressing my main point that Stein is terrible for the Green party and indistinguishable from someone who’s purposely trying to sabotage it.

That doesn’t address my point. If the Greens were a serious party there would be a large movement to boot Stein for how ineffectual she’s been as a leader.

Say what you will about Democrats and Biden, but they are leagues ahead of Greens and Stein in this regard.

How would a Democrat/Republican plant who was purposely trying to sabotage the Greens and prevent them from gaining relevance act differently from Jill Stein?

They wouldn’t.

It’s quite interesting how some people hate Democrat or Republican politicians repeatedly running for president, but will completely defend Stein for running several failed campaigns.

SpaceX’s entire development philosophy is “test early, test often and learn from failures”. This is a much quicker pace than simulating every imaginable failure scenario and leads to faster progress in development.

This is a catchy statement, not an actionable philosophy. There’s many ways to do it, and it’s entirely possible that SpaceX is doing it poorly.

There’s a lot of value in brainstorming every imaginable failure scenario. It’s industry standard to do so in fact with HAZOPs. There’s failures that you may not necessarily see in testing – especially those that are rare but catastrophic. This is a field that should be acutely aware of that given past events.

There’s also a right way to do testing and a wrong way to do testing. You typically consolidate tests and do several at a time, depending on the stage in the project. And you don’t typically risk precious equipment in doing so.

From the sounds of it, they don’t have a robust safety program, and they’re hemorrhaging money and resources through poor testing philosophies.

I don’t recognize suicide as something that falls under bodily autonomy. It’s almost always caused by mental health issues and shitty living situations.

If someone in chronic pain wants to opt for euthanasia, that’s different, and I support it. Their condition can’t be improved, and they’re making the decision with a sound mind.

I was watching live on TV as it happened. They were trying to put him out several times. He poured an accelerant on himself which likely made it a lot more difficult to put him out.

I can’t imagine how frustrating it must be

She tried to be a decent person in an indecent time.

Feeding a person.

It’s hard to make much analysis without knowing the exact culprit, but I think it’s certain to say they made a very bad choice.

Yeah, or about Russia invading Ukraine! Wait.

If you look at documents at the time, intelligence agencies said there was a possibility he had WMDs, but there was no conclusive evidence nor assurances.

The Bush Administration lied to Congress and said we knew for sure they had them.

Edit: It’s good to have healthy skepticism – it hasn’t escaped my notice that the majority of evidence behind this claim is coming from Israel. I don’t think it’s wise to deem it automatically false however, and pulling funding is premature. There should however be a serious internal investigation. And if they already have smoking guns, the UN should release them in the interest of transparency.

Apologies for starting out my comment as a bit of a jackass.

Not to mention, they’re complaining about sustainable food by throwing away food.

Complaining by wasting food certainly invalidates the message however.

There’s three types of protestors in the world:

1. Cause minimal, non serious disruption. Spread the message without pissing people off, because that’ll make people more receptive to joining you.

2. Cause serious disruptions, even if it pisses people off, because it brings attention to the issue makes it impossible to ignore.

3. Bring attention to an issue at all costs by any means necessary, even if it makes the issue worse or has absolutely nothing to do with the issue. Be an asshole to make people listen.

There’s a valid argument that without 2, people won’t take something seriously, and mild inconveniences are the whole point of nonviolent protest. It gets a bit morally grey when it would do something like prevent an ambulance from operating though. I don’t think anyone who normally waves that away would feel the same if it resulted in the death of a loved one.

And 3 is just clout chasers imo, like in this situation. I can’t take someone protesting food insecurity seriously if they’re wasting food to do so.

Killing yourself to protest climate change isn’t a climate issue, it’s a mental health issue.

… So they threw away food to make a statement?

This is like protesting pollution by purposely throwing oil into the ocean. Generally speaking the act of protest should not directly intensify the problem.

The Gaza genocide is because Israel dislikes the Palestinians existing. These attacks are because the US/UK dislike the Houthis attacking commercial vessels.

You’re insulting Palestinians by suggesting there’s any similarity, and actually playing into the Israeli narrative that Palestinians are being violent. Well done.

The power dynamic has shifted so much that it would be a 1000x speedrun if they did it again.

And honestly? Let them. Maybe we can do reconstruction properly this time.