I wouldn’t set it at $500M. I would set it at 1000x the median household income. Once you’ve hoarded enough wealth to last ten long lifetimes, we’re cutting you off. This would be about $80M in today’s money.

This is also roughly my best estimate for the largest possible “honest fortune,” one that can be obtained through wage labor and investment. This is the kind of money a married pair of neurosurgeons could amass if they both worked long careers, never had kids, lived like monks, and invested everything. To get more money than this, you have to own a company, be an executive, or otherwise exploit the labor of others.

IDK. Really depends on your precise path. My spouse and I are about 40 and, barring some truly collapse-type scenarios, our retirement is pretty much assured. We could make no other contribution and just let what we already have grow, and it would easily cover a very comfortable retirement at age 65. At this point further contributions are about moving that date forward.

We did it through being DINKS, both with engineering careers, general frugality, and getting on the property ladder pretty early. But it was a combination of luck, skill, hard work, good decision making, and luck.

I think it’s much simpler than that. They like the idea of a very powerful president because a powerful presidency is the only way to get unpopular conservative positions enacted. But they also really don’t want things going to full-on dictatorship. Why? Because in a full dictatorship, the court is just as powerless as the legislature.

Honestly, it’s a perfectly reasonable discussion to have. In a universe like Star Trek, species of radically different lifespans and maturation rates will have had to find ways to navigate inter-species social interaction. And if the species are close enough to be physically attractive to one another, navigating ages of consent would be a major part of this process. This isn’t trying to justify human pedophilia. Obviously within one species adults should not have relations with children. The problem is that species will blindly apply their own numbers to other species and assume their own standards apply.

I forgive you for lashing out. I understand that deeply reflecting on your preconceived notions and assumptions of the universe is difficult. Overcoming bigotry can be hard and painful work. But try to be more polite.

Real talk below:

Obviously I’m being facetious when talking about a fictional species, but this does have real overlap even with real-world human relations. Some people have medical conditions that pause their physical maturation. They end up looking like children forever. And those folks face a hard time forming relationships, as even partners willing to look past their appearance face constant accusations of pedophilia. This attitude of “shut up, the whole topic is verbotten, any discussion of any topic relating to age of consent means you’re a pedophile” is childish and harms real-world people. I’m not here trying to argue that pedophilia is in any way OK. I’m not trying to argue that any relationship between a human an adult and a human child is OK. I am pointing out that our knee-jerk reaction to the topic results in harming actual adults fully capable of consenting to sexual activity. We’re so conditioned to react with white-hot rage to the topic that we end up branding relationships between adults as pedophilia. Relationships involving anyone that society infantilizes end up being judged as pedophilia.

This is a board related to Star Trek, and Star Trek has a long tradition of exploring real-world issues through science fiction allegory. In many ways the Ocampa are analogous to real human beings with certain disabilities. There are many who doubt that disabled people are fully capable of consenting to intercourse, and not just in the extreme case of an adult looking like a child. Disabled people have had to fight for generations for their right to be seen as fully independent adults capable of making their own choices. Disabled people have had to fight against the very infantilization that the Ocampa experience in Voyager. The partners of disabled people often face accusations of something akin to pedophilia. The Ocampa are a metaphor for any group of real-world human adults that broader society deems unworthy of making their own choices and living independently. The partners of disabled people are often judged just like Neelix is being judged in this thread.

I don’t feel it’s at all inappropriate to talk about this on a Star Trek board. “Both of you shut up” has very similar vibes to the lament of “I hate that Star Trek got woke.” It ignores that Star Trek, like all good science fiction, uses metaphor to critique real human society. And the Ocampa are no different. The Ocampa are a metaphor for any marginalized group in society that the rest of society doesn’t quite consider full and capable adults.

Again, you’re mapping your human stereotypes onto other species. Thankfully, in the future of Star Trek, people have gotten past such closed-minded thinking.

I suppose especially if the freezer had a drain line and a defrost cycle, a regular freezer would dry out a body quite effectively over a long enough time. (Ideally you would remove the moisture from the freezer entirely, not just leave it in the freezer as ice. Maybe a DIY approach to mummification could go like this:

1. Obtain chest freezer with a defrost and drain line feature.
2. Place body in bottom of freezer.
3. Pour a large quantity of salt on the body until completely covered.
4. Turn on the freezer and let it sit for a very long time, like a year.

The problem with just freezing the body, without removing the moisture, is that to me this isn’t true mummification. To me at least, a “mummy” is something that can be left in ordinary room-temperature conditions and not undergo further decay. While freezing a body will preserve it while cold, the minute you warm it back up it will start to rot. To be a proper mummy, it has to be able to survive outside of the freezer. Removing moisture would be critical for this.

I don’t know why I’m writing about this. But sometimes it’s fun to approach unhinged problems from a real engineering point of view. Sure, you can read a book on how the ancient Egyptians did mummification, but that’s not exactly replicable today by ordinary people using commonly available materials. The Egyptian technique requires a lot of skill, many specialized tools, and a lot of rare ingredients. What I’m wondering is with modern technology, if there’s a way to democratize mummification, to allow it to be approachable by the common man using readily available tools and materials with little requisite knowledge required.

This is racist against Ocampa. Ocampa are not children. They simply live shorter lives than other species and mature faster. Don’t assume your species’ rules apply to them. Before the “Caretaker” ruined their world, they had as advanced and independent a civilization as any other in the galaxy. But because of their short lifespans, they have to constantly battle against the infantilizing prejudice of other species. Their brains simply grow and mature faster. They absorb and process information faster. They develop wisdom faster. An Ocampa at 3 is equivalent to a human at 30. Do not assume the norms of your species apply to all other species.

Imagine what navigating such prejudice would be like! Imagine if you, a human, were forced by circumstance to live among a species that on average lived to be a thousand. Imagine how it would feel to have your opinions and input constantly dismissed as childish, for literally your entire lifespan, simply because those of the slow-maturing species thought of you as a child! Imagine if anyone even having a relationship with you was social suicide because you, a fully mature and independent adult of your species, simply had a faster-maturing biology than the aliens you’re living among. Imagine being condemned to a life of loneliness simply because those around you can’t see past their prejudice and the assumptions based on their biology, not yours. Imagine being 30, dating someone of analogous age to you (perhaps 300), and having to defend your partner against constant charges of pedophilia. Imagine having your defense of your partner dismissed because, “I’m sorry, but you’re just not mature enough to have opinions on such things.”

Ocampa past the Ocampan age of majority have a right to consensual activity with whomever they please! They’re full adults, and we should not let our bias as a slow-maturing species cloud our interactions with them. Some part of me thinks you’re just jealous that most Ocampa at three are more intelligent and mature than most humans at 30.

This is disgusting anti-Ocampan bigotry. In many ways it reminds me of the fight that disabled people have had to fight to have their right to consent to sexual activity be recognized and respected.

And paradoxically, your approach actually leads to real pedophilia. Think about what happens if you apply the human “18 and up rule” to all species. Consider that slow-maturing species mentioned earlier. Their 18 might be like the human 2. They could be 18 years old but resemble a human two year old in both mental and physical development. But your rule would conclude it’s perfectly fine for a human adult to have intercourse with such a person.

Ages of majority are a function of species. Species reach adulthood at different rates. When judging the acceptability of inter-species relationships, what matters is that both consenting parties are legal adults of their respective species. The actual age is just a number. Do not assume human rules apply outside humanity. Your way is not the only way.

I wonder if it’s possible to affordably DIY a freeze dryer large enough to hold a human body. In principle such an innovation would allow low-cost, low-skill DIY mummification.

All Neelix ever wanted was to spread joy and happiness to the people he loved.

You have very poor reading comprehension.

People need to work on the their reading comprehension. The failed strategy is the idea that we can shy away from trans rights and try to portray it as a distraction. GreenBeards comment is not describing anything new. They’re describing the very strategy Democrats have been using for a decade at this point. They’re too cowardly to come out and fully defend and support trans people, and they try to third way it.

Connotation vs denotation.

This is the same failed strategy Democrats have been trying for a decade.

Democrats have been trying exactly your message for a decade, and it’s failed. They’ve tried again and again. And it’s failed again and again. Here’s what a voter actually watching a debate experiences:

1. Republican goes on transphobic rant.

2. Democrat responds with anything but a full-throated support of trans rights. They say, “we should leave it up to doctors and parents, I’m here to talk about other things.” They call it a distraction. They don’t support the bigotry, but they also do anything they can to avoid the topic.

3. Voters read this as a deflection. They think the Democrat is trying to avoid the issue (because they are). And since the Democrat won’t vehemently and openly support trans rights. The Republican is demonizing trans people, and the Democrat is avoiding the subject. They conclude that the Republican is probably right and that the Democrat is just afraid to offend their radical base. The Democrat is clearly ashamed of the issue, and people can smell that a mile away.

Want to know how to respond to “concerns” about trans people in bathrooms? Point out that Jim Crow was built on the “valid concerns” of white women not feeling safe sharing space with black women. Want to know how to talk about trans kids? Point out that any hand wringing about this can only come from a viewpoint that fundamentally does not view the lives of cis people and trans people as equally valuable. (The only way you can justify withholding treatment from 50 trans kids just in case one cis kid makes a mistake is if you don’t hold the lives of both in equal value.) Publicly state that of course trans people change their sex, and that it’s absurd to argue that trans women should have to use women’s restrooms. Argue that trans women belong in women sports because they’re biologically female, not because of vague platitudes about identity and validity. In other words, fully embrace trans rights and know how to actually talk about and defend them in a coherent way.

You can’t third way your out of this. Democrats have been trying for a decade. Kamala responded to transphobia not with a full-throated support for trans rights, but with a mealy-mouthed “I’ll enforce the law.”

Democrats have been arguing for a decade that this is a distraction, but that’s not how voters think. If one party constantly brings an issue up, low-information voters will assume it’s an issue worth considering. And if the other side just keeps calling it a distraction, the voters will conclude the Democrats are trying to hide something and side with the Republican. You can’t just ignore these issues. It doesn’t work. It’s been tried, and it’s failed.

What you’re missing is that Democrats HAVE NOT been talking about this. Sure, they largely haven’t been voting for transphobic bills, but their approach has been, “don’t talk about trans people publicly, but support trans people privately.” And it just hasn’t worked. Your approach isn’t novel. It’s just more of the same. In an era when authenticity matters to voters more than anything else, calling an issue a distraction is a suicidal election strategy.

Jim Crow was built because it was “common sense” that white women’s safety demanded the exclusion of black men and women from society. Segregated washrooms existed because white women “didn’t feel comfortable” sharing restrooms with black women.

Can you provide any citation that a company can’t fire you if you have a medical card? AFAIK that’s not true. As I understand it, It’s still illegal under federal law, and there is no concept of marijuana as medicine in federal law.

I see it as a direct continuation of:

Slavery->Sharecropping and Jim Crow->mass incarceration

Slavery never ended. The name just changed to be more polite, with a fig leaf of freedom and free will. Additionally we realized two things:

1. It’s more economical to hold slaves in large central facilities than dispersed.

2. The best way to fight abolitionism is to convince the populace that the slaves deserve it.

[CITATION NEEDED.]

When talking about air fryers, my husband once rightly pointed out that air fryers are just countertop convection ovens.

I walked over to him, held my index finger up to his lips, and whispered to him, “shhh. Air fryer. AIR FRYER.” 🤣

I will not even dignify your overt racism with a response.