I have a smart home setup. I originally used a Pi. Unfortunately, it started to become unreliable after about 12-18 months. Apparently it quite a common issue with long term Pi systems.

I eventually changed to a small NUC. A bit less power efficient, but it's been bomb proof for a few years now.

You massively underestimate the complexity and fagility of the systems supporting you right now. Food, power and good production would basically collapse.

The biggest problem is the megacorps, they are too big to fail and so need to be broken up. The best way to do that is to make it financially in their interest to shatter themselves. Power law taxes would help both so it now, and keep companies from growing to that level. It also controls the speed of the change, so the supply lines we rely on remain functional.

Killing the goose blindly is just self destructive. We want to them to be able to die, but we need to reduce their size first. That way better options can take up the slack.

Answer me this. Collapse every company worth more than $1B simultaneously. What would happen to the quality of life of those at the bottom? It would be...bad.

One of the issues is that their value isn't fixed. A billionaire as relatively little in the way of liquid (or liquidatable) assets. Their company might be worth billions, but, by taking it, you will destabilise it. Its value will plummet.

In order to access that money, you need to syphon it off more slowly. Think of the goose that lays golden eggs. Cutting it open won't get you a glut of gold. The counterpoint is that you still need to collect the eggs!

In my opinion, we need a tax setup that forces individuals to regress to the mean. (Default is the rich and poor both move towards average when they are of average performance).

We also need to force companies to follow a power law. A few big companies, with the number growing as you move down. A tax setup that punishes forming big conglomerates, and so encourages more medium and small companies would be optimal. Have it adjust based on the overall industry. This both keeps industries competitive, and syphons money from those most able to bear it.

There is a huge difference between knowing what is needed, and how the fuck to implement it however!

People forget that humans are just animals (that can sometimes reason and talk). I still stand that dog training guides make better parenting books than many parenting books. At least up till around 3 years old.

The extension of this to adults is more challenging. Intent matters. This could be used abusively VERY easily. That is not happening here, however. With great power, comes great responsibility.

It's also worth noting that, if you use this, plan out how you will explain it later. A panicked, "oh shit, (s)he caught on!" will look bad, no matter what. A calm, thoughtful, positive explanation, delivered with confidence will likely get a lot more acceptance.

A: "Ok, what's with the M&Ms?"

B: "You've noticed then. :)"

A: "..."

B: "I noticed chocolate made you happy. I also noticed you were trying to overcome some negative habits. I decided to help. Whenever you put effort in, I rewarded it with a bit of chocolate. It makes you happy, and helps you lock a good habit in better."

A: "... You've been conditioning me?!?"

B: "Yes, don't you like the improvement?"

A "... yes, but I'm not sure I should..."

B: "M&M?"

Just checked the numbers, for those interested.

A gas power plant produces around. 200-300kWh per tonne of CO2.

Capture costs 300-900kWh per tonne captured.

So this is basically non viable using fossil fuel as the power. If you aren't, then storage of that power is likely a lot better.

It's also worth noting that it is still CO2 gas. Long term containment of a gas is far harder than a liquid or solid.

The International Space Station. The sheer confusion value would be amazing, particularly if I stayed quiet about how it happened ("I went to bed, then woke up floating here. I've no clue how it happened").

I would get to cause a major incident of complete chaos, with little to no harm. I would get to experience space and weightlessness. I would also get a near guaranteed lift home (eventually). There's also almost no way it could be kept quiet, so I get to be a minor celebrity for a while.

I know a few teachers, the "cringy and bad" is the goal, not a mistake. It's apparently quite therapeutic watching the "cool kids" squirm. How bad can you make them, but not make it obvious what you're doing?

The fact that it also helps a lot of kids remember it is almost just a bonus.

The real European cryptid.

I was curious and looked it up. Apparently it mostly happens between trees of the same species, with several causes.

Most are mechanical. The tips brush against each other, and damage new branches and leaves. Both trees divert growth away from the area.

Some also sense shading via red light. They focus growth away from shade. This means neither tree grows into the gap, since they are partially shading each other.

It also helps limit the spread of leaf eating parasites. Again, particularly useful in a forest of the same species.

So yes, the trees are social distancing, to avoid the spread of disease.

I've got a Miele washing machine that's the best part of 40 years old. It's required some maintenance over the years. However, it was designed with maintenance in mind, so all the repairs have been fairly painless.

My 5 year old dishwasher, on the other hand, has cost me more time, money and stress than the (very overworked) washing machine.

The reason for this is that we tend to sleep deeper now than our ancestors. Because of this, we are more prone to roll onto a baby, and not wake up.

It can still be done, you just have to avoid things like alcohol, that stop you waking. You also need to make sure your sleeping position is safe. Explaining this to exhausted parents is unreliable, however. Hence the advice Americans seem to be given.

Fyi, if people want a halfway point, you can get cosleeping cribs. They attach to the side of the bed. Your baby can be close to you, while also eliminating the risk of suffocating them.