Here's the information regarding the recent fungal threat. There are MANY fungal infections that infect humans internally, and many of them become very deadly.https://www.cdc.gov/fungal/candida-auris/index.html

Toenail fungus lives in the nailbed, and there are many fungal infections that cause toenail fungus. The most common one typically does not spread past the nailbed. Some, can infect the blood stream and will result in death if not treated.

here's a list of SOME fungal infections that are dangerous.https://www.cdc.gov/fungal/diseases/index.html

This list is not exhaustive.

Regarding toenail fungus....the infection is often so hard to get rid of, that you're sometimes prescribed a pill for it that can do significant damage to your liver, to the point that you have to have frequent bloodwork while taking the medication in order to monitor your liver and ensure it's not being damaged too much. Many people are removed from this medication due to their liver suffering too much from it. At which point, the next method to cure the infection is to surgically remove the nail, then sterilize the matrix so the nail doesn't grow back and then continuously apply topical prescription strength antifungals directly to the nail bed and do crazy things like change your socks 3 times a day and sterilize them in bleach or boiling water before washing them separately from other clothes.

What on earth are you talking about? There are fungal infections that are so effective at living in humans, that they're sometimes nearly impossible to get rid of. Toenail fungus being one of them. Additionally, CDC is monitoring a potential crisis right now for a killer fungus that is spreading between humans and is highly resistant to antifungals.

Those hurricanes won't stand a chance.

First, my argument was not one about the possibility of getting everyone to collectively engage in these practices. It was simply an observation on a single way in which a person could insulate themselves from food insecurity in a failed economy.

Second, nobody said "turn your front yard into a farmland" a family of 4 could be sustained for an entire year on a series of raised beds in less than 800 square feet. As I said, this isn't feasible for everyone, but it is feasible for a lot of people, regardless of whether they're willing to or not. Those who are not willing to, will suffer from food insecurity when the economy collapses. Whether you or I can convince them of not isn't our problem, it's theirs.

One thing I can say for certain, is that if we destroy the climate through our continued practices, nobody will be growing anything in their yard, whether they want to or not.

I live in a redneck, MAGA county, and I fully understand exactly how unwilling people are to accept any new ideas or that climate change is even real. My argument was in no way an argument to convince people collectively to make this change, it was a suggestion that if anyone does not want to die of starvation in an economic collapse because they're dependent on the grocery store, then they probably want to make this change (or some other similar change that reduces their reliance on grocery stores to survive). Their willingness to accept that is none of my concern. My food security situation is handled 100%.

I could make arguments about how individuals could change their behaviors to save our climate....but again, I know all too well that will fall on deaf ears.

Not trying to say you need to change your behaviors or that you're even in a position to. But this way of thinking is exactly why corporations will continue to destroy the environment for profit. Many people have the ability to become partially or completely self sufficient with produce. Livestock is a bit different.

Anyone with a lawn is choosing to use that space to grow an ornamental plant that requires constant care and maintenance instead of a beneficial food bearing plant that also requires care and maintenance.

If more people worked harder to become more self sufficient, instead of relying on the "trade labor for food" model....more of society would be insulated from damaging effects of a failed economy and would not become part of the "billions" that may die in an economic breakdown.

Obviously this is an overly simplistic argument and I understand there are many nuances to this that aren't being accounted for like those living in apartment complexes in densely packed urban areas....there are solutions there too....but simply being apathetic to "I'm completely dependent on the economic situation that's killing us and I have no capability or motivation to change that" is certainly not setting yourself up for success in a world where we can clearly see, decades in advance, what the consequences of that will be.

Finally someone says it. The climate is being super disrespectful.

USUALLY harmless doesn't mean ALWAYS harmless. Not to say this particular event is dangerous, but relatively dangerous events resulting from CMEs is not uncommon and happen roughly every 100 years. They haven't been a huge problem before because the world wasn't reliant on technology. CMEs that are large enough can damage electronics and bring down electrical infrastructure. 100 years ago, that was a minor annoyance. Now....having one half of the earth losing its power infrastructure, satellite communications and electronics would be devastation on a massive scale.

It's all garbage anyways. Might as well get some potatoes for it.

Those are smoked vegetables though. They make better sunflower oil.

That might be your reality...but that's certainly not the reality here in the real world.

It's not too far fetched to imagine the machines could fix themselves. Additionally, there are far more people needing employment than there would be a need for robot fixers. The same problem would still need a solution.

Where will you get the money when there are no jobs?

Because, when a single industry automates a process, there are other places those workers can go after retraining. It certainly sucks for them but society is minimally impacted. When labor becomes a thing of the past, we still need to trade for and acquire goods. It would make zero sense to have a fully autonomous society that produces everything we need, but nobody is able to acquire those things because there are no jobs. Likely this would translate into a universal income.

It's also well-established that high dietary cholesterol has a very weak if any impact on blood cholesterol.

McConnel is old as shit!

>You're suggesting opening up a new front in this world war.

I was suggesting no such thing.

Coming to the defense of a sovereign nation against an illegal aggressor is not "the same thing" as supplying arms to an illegal aggressor and assisting them in their murder of civilian populations.

Are you suggesting the US military deploys on American soil and starts bombing out the KKK?

These 100 shots were fired from a fighter jet, nobody hunts birds with a fighter jet.

It certainly is. Look at Iran, Ukraine, nk and sk, Taiwan/china, Pakistan, Brazil. I

Everyone is testing the waters right now. Many countries are under resource strain, public perception strain, and the world is focused on the situation with Russia and Ukraine. This is an opportunity for other bad actors to see what the response is to their behavior while the focus is turned elsewhere. Resource constraints specifically are likely to force countries to make resource grabs, or take this opportunity to shift their geopolitical influence.

This conflict has been brewing for some time. It's not new.

It also indicates they were warning shots. Regardless, using kinetic ammunition against a small, agile aerial target is not easy. 100 shots is about 2 seconds worth of fire....if that. If they really needed to take these down, they would saturate the airspace with lead, or fire any form of ordinance with tracking.

Only the ones of a feather.

Quack