Revolution will either come, killing most of us, or the train of rampant capitalistic destruction will continue on, killing all of us. We're not close enough to immediate death for most of us to view revolution as an acceptable answer yet, but I have no doubt that in a few decades, when the young adults of that time look back on the current times and think "they had it so easy," the risk associated with an uprising will seem much less daunting when compared to the risk of simply living within whatever jumbled-together scraps of a system we'll have left by then.

Revolution isn't a solution that any sane person gets excited for; it all but guarantees a short life full of suffering for the vast majority of people, but it's a solution that is chosen when the alternative is guaranteed suffering for everyone outside of the upper class. It's the last resort used when the best hope you have for the future is to fight for the chance that a few people make it to peaceful times, because you don't see any other way for anyone to get there by working within the system.

Voting is important, yes; we get the best chance to make it to a revolution by voting blue, slowing down capitalism's destruction of the world, but so long as each election is populated by 2 candidates proudly bought out by corporations who don't give a shit about the world, there will be no viable option within the system to actually stop its destruction. That requires actually changing the system through uprising.

I didn't really see people mentioning that "would" can still be used past-tense outside of "would have," though it's not in the same way - you use it when talking about something that happened multiple times in the past. For example, "When I was a kid my friends and I would go to the pool every Saturday," which means that, as children, my friends and I did visit the pool every Saturday.

The American taxpayer doesn't get to choose where their taxes go, so they can't be responsible for atrocities caused by that money. Joe Biden is the president; I understand that there are checks and balances that prevent him from making wild changes out of left field, but he definitely has the power to stop sending weapons to a country he himself has said has gone too far. Would that decision have repercussions for himself and the population at large? Of course. Would those repercussions be significant enough to warrant continuing to massacre innocent people to avoid them? Fuck no.

The fact that Biden chooses not to make that stand is damning, even if he's still the candidate I'll be voting for to prevent the worst outcome. In the end, Biden's choices demand that action be taken by the population, and that action will need to be more than just waiting 4 years and hoping the next candidate isn't as bad; real efforts rivaling the civil rights movement will need to be taken in order to push our government back toward being acceptable again by the time we're voting in new candidates.

I'm not discouraging at home novelty tests like ancestry and 23andme, I'm discouraging their use in the situation you've described, because that's not what they're intended for. I'm very sorry for your situation, and I hope that you find the information that you're looking for, but you're more likely to find it with actual paternity tests than trying to glean information from a test that's not meant for that.

As for the medical comments, ancestry isn't meant to provide that. It's not actually sequencing the DNA, it's just checking for specific sections of DNA that are known to vary between different ethnicities. Some health information can be assessed in that way, but its inclusion in at-home tests was made illegal because those sorts of results need to be handled with a genetics professional so that they can explain the complex results and their impact on the individual and their family. Some at-home tests have added medical information back in, but that's legally dubious, and considered to be dangerous by genetics professionals.

If there are any medical concerns, a different DNA test should be used, and should be ordered by a genetic counselor or geneticist. Situations like these are one of the reasons why genetic counselors exist - please don't believe that adding a medical professional to the mix is a bad thing - genetics is a very complex topic, and having someone trained to understand and explain it is invaluable. Please let them help you in your endeavor.

Well, the Ancestry test only really gives stuff like... ancestry. It's not useful for much else, and for good reason - it's meant to be a neat novelty, not a medical or paternity test. I'm a former genetic counselor, and we generally don't suggest getting DNA tests for children unless it's important for health reasons, or if they're old enough to give their own consent for it - that sort of information is very personal, and often people don't want it to be available in their health records.

If you are simply wondering about ancestry, you could always get the test yourself - anything the test shows for you would at least give that side of the kids' ancestry. Obviously parenthood verification can be useful, but from your other comments you seem to be aware that a mother doesn't need such a verification, and it's generally not recommended that you use ancestry tests for that purpose anyway. If you're concerned about any genetic issues in your family, I'd highly recommend talking to a genetic counselor; they can help organize the family history and see if there's anything you'll want to be cognizant of.

They've never needed pictures before, and they don't need pictures now. Hell, even the iconic meme picture is taken from a video of a woman speaking normally - they just used an unflattering frame to discredit her. This isn't a ploy to get a photo op of the left being mad, it's another small push of the republican boundaries. Enough "joke" bills about overbearing punishments for minor offenses made by people their party doesn't like, and they'll be primed enough to fully support the real thing. We're already there for a large portion of the republican base.

It's not enough to just burn it to the ground - the right people need to be behind the fire, or the only people to survive will be the wealthy with all their money and power.

If we work on spurring the people to rise up, buying time until enough people get on board, we can make real positive change; if we allow capitalism to destroy the country, the working class will die and the upper class will just move somewhere else.

I think there's a lot more comradery between politicians across the aisle than they let on publicly. I agree with the final statement, though "embraced" is a far stronger word than I'd pick.

I'm all for kicking both jammed doors and walls.

Well, once the lease is over people have to sign a new one anyway, so even existing tenants can only lock in rates for so long. And when one landlord ups rent, it's usually because all the other landlords are doing it too - it seems like they do it in unison, I imagine because they don't want to have to worry about people leaving for somewhere cheaper. I'm not sure if it's illegal like price fixing or not, but it doesn't seem to make a difference in the end.

I'd listen to that song on repeat as a kid just for the piano section at the end.

You can literally see that it's a jpeg. Whatever, man. At this point you're just trolling. But hey, that's one of those human interactions that the internet made possible, so thanks for highlighting that for me.