note: from what I remember reading a while ago, this works because it scrapes your teeth, which slightly files them down. it’s like using using loose sand paper.

[email protected]

[email protected]

[email protected]

❤️

Yep! I found him thru his Money Game series. At the time, he only had two parts. I slowly started listening to his other stuff and became a hardcore fan. Once Hi Ren came out, I was already all in. It hit so harddddd. The dude is extraordinarily talented. He’s in my top 3 with Eminem and Residente.

Congrats on finding him! Assuming that he’s a bit of a unique artist and we both like him, we probably have some fundamental traits or other matters in common, so hi similar person 👋😁

Good catch! I’m still waking up this morning 🥱

I’m imagining some sort of three-pronged strategy. One, espionage to convince people in the nuclear chain of command to disregard any orders to fire nukes. This would involve converting people that have likely been thoroughly vetted by the Russian government. It would also be risky in that all it would take is for one person to snitch for the Russian government to catch on.

Two, a cyber attack that disarms nuclear weapons firing systems. This would likely involve gaining physical access to many launch systems, infecting their computer systems, then letting the infection stay dormant without getting caught yet somehow activating it when necessary. Say for example they run a dummy drill without nukes, the infection could be discovered.

And three, a interception system for nukes that are launched. This would be the most risky because it would involve intercepting nukes immediately after being fired. For ICBMs, we’d have to get them right after launch since once they’re in space, it’s nearly impossible to intercept, especially after the warheads separate from the rocket. Submarine-launched weapons might be easier to intercept if they’re strapped to a rocket until detonation. Bombs would be nearly impossible, but it would be a lot easier to intercept the planes they’re on.

Overall, I would guess we’d be able to stop some Russian nukes from hitting NATO targets, but not all of them. It would be a wild guess to calculate the percentage that get intercepted/through. Russia has about 1,710 nuclear weapons deployed. Let’s say they fire half of them as a retaliatory strike saving the other half as defense in case the retaliation stops a NATO attack. If only 1% of that half make it through, that’s still 85 8.5 nuclear strikes. If only a 10th of that were aimed at major cities, that would be 8 major NATO cities that are obliterated and then require major recovery efforts.

Not one country is prepared to recover from a nuclear strike because that’s virtually all natural disasters in one. Imagine the devastation if London, Paris, Berlin, Rome, New York, San Francisco, Washington DC, and Los Angeles. There would not only be major loss, but the rest would have to dedicate immense resources to helping those areas recover, further pulling resources away from defense and counterattack. We would also have to consider that the other 75 nukes attacked infrastructure and military targets, so we’d be severely incapacitated.

tl;dr: stopping and surviving a Russian nuclear attack is practically impossible

;)J<

part of the internet group Anonymous

I usually forget something when it is no longer relevant to something in my life over a long period of time.

Pakistan and India have enough nukes to cause major famine across the world. Russia alone has enough nukes to nearly if not surely end humanity even if only 1% of the human population were killed directly from a nuclear explosion. I think the only way NATO could take Russia is if they were to somehow disarm their nukes.

Also, we have to consider alliances. Russia and North Korea are closely aligned. If the entire world went to war with NK, it is still possible that South Korea would be devastated because they have setup their entire military to shell the fuck out of South Korea at a moment’s notice and have an extensive underground tunnel system for retaliatory purposes. However, it’s possible that NK would value self-preservation over maintaining it’s alignment with a Russia that will definitely not exist anymore.

If you’re Cuban, you say, “Wait, don’t leave yet. I’m about to make coffee.” It means you’re telling them to leave after the coffee.

According to them, it’s really the academy award nominee Margot Robbie. She hasn’t provided any convincing proof. I still believe her tho because I usually like girls of color, but Margot Robbie is my one white girl celebrity crush 😍

I can’t speak on Washington and Adams in regards to their dislike of NYC, but relevantly, Jefferson had a unique understanding of freedom. To him, freedom wasn’t a list of established rights protected by government. He was a major opponent of government and would likely agree to many anarchist ideals of today. Most founding fathers would likely agree that when they were discussing freedom, they meant freedom from England and monarchies. Jefferson was on another level though; he was extreme with the idea of freedom. Freedom was the ability for someone to live exactly how they pleased without any outside influence, both physically and mentally. It was a natural right for every single person to do whatever they pleased with their life as long as it didn’t affect anyone else’s ability to live their life as they pleased. Governments, churches, large companies, etc. were in strict opposition to this ideal of freedom. In practical terms, that means he had a vision of the USA as a land of self-sustaining farmers so that no one would be dependent on others to live or think. He was truly revolutionary in that sense. To him, urban areas were rife with corruption of not only politics and economy, but also ideas. He had a disdain for anything centralized: cities, government, churches, etc. He was the main advocate for the separation of church and state. Fun fact! Last I checked, when someone swears on a Bible in an American court, they swear on a Jeffersonian Bible which has all supernatural phenomenon omitted.

I think that the most influential American in the history of the USA is Jefferson, followed by Adams and then Washington. Jefferson was extreme in his vision of freedom, and those ideals are entrenched in the US Constitution. However, he was somewhat hypocritical with how he lived his life considering he became a president, owned slaves, and even let Louisiana continue slavery. In contrast, Adams was a principled person that truly held to his values and beliefs. He advocated for abolition of slavery and didn’t own slaves. He even defended British troops that killed Americans because he was steadfast in his belief that valid legal trials not only protect citizens from government overreach, but that is the only way to achieve legal truth. Washington is famous and popular, but he didn’t have the impact on foundational ideals that the other two had. Washington was more concrete and likeable. He was a practical leader. Shit…I’m digressing. Back to Tommy. If Jefferson wasn’t involved in the foundation of the USA, I think the country would have turned out to be quite different from what it is today…maybe even unrecognizable. I’m not as confident that would have been the case for Adams and Washington.

Washington: Oh, so y’all polarized the country into two separate parties when I specifically told you not to??

Adams: Didn’t I tell y’all about that slavery bullshit?

Tommy Jefferson: How can anyone live in NYC?

Benji Frank: You can just fly to France like a bird while you sleep to dunk your oui oui?

I love it!!

“You have perfect teeth.” I don’t, which is why I find it weird. One is cracked and another is chipped. Two separate women 2 years apart have told me that several times.

Several men have told me I have a great smile. I’m a cis-straight man. One of them was a martial arts instructor that looked like the Rock. He told me this in front of my girlfriend and the whole class. He then pointed it out a few times throughout the weekend-long workshop.

One guy that I had never met came up to me and told me I was a good dancer. He was with his girl.

I’m really confused about the last two.

that sounds like a fantastic compliment! your beauty is universal 😮😍

Freedom from the voluntary prison that my memories keep me in. That or a best friend or something. Either of which kinda cancel themselves out since they had to be purchased :/

I’m not really into this stuff, but from what I can tell, liberal became an insult purely because conservatives wanted to label liberals as inferior. That’s about it. Some leftists also use liberal as an insult, though to a lesser extreme.

How conservatives use it, liberal means someone that is too sensitive, accommodating, weak, and evil (especially in Christian terms).

How leftists use it, liberal means uneducated, hypocritical, insufficient, and turncoat/traitor.