No need for a meme. Just say happy mother’s day. A personal anecdote will mean more… Give one example of why you think they’re a great mother.

I have a few close friends who are mothers I sent a note today. If you’re close enough you’d wish them a happy birthday it’d be kind to do the same on any other holiday that applies. And ultimately this is all about being nice to people you care about. If it would make their day a little bit better: do it!

The same applies for days that aren’t holidays too … This is part of how you make and maintain friendships. Send a nice message every once in a while just to let them know they matter to you and you think highly about them. People love to hear others appreciate them. They’re more likely to do the same back if you do, and I always find it uplifting to get a random compliment from a friend.

Music videos! Binging some of the live sessions posted by artists is a healthier time sink than most everything else on YouTube.

If you’re looking for convincing arguments; read through the responses from this panel of experts: https://www.kentclarkcenter.org/surveys/tariffs/ (from 2024) and more recently: https://www.kentclarkcenter.org/surveys/tariffs-reciprocal-and-retaliatory-2/

Many of the responding professors provide detail on why they vote a certain way. For example to the 3rd part of the question from 2024: “The gains for the American economy from tripling the tariffs would measurably outweigh the losses.” you get replies like:

Protectionism via tariffs creates well-understood aggregate losses in efficiency. This is so even if China “unfairly” subsidizes its steel. Political motivations aside, actual distributional impacts are modest, ill targeted, and better handled with other more direct tax tools.

With links to further background information: https://economics.mit.edu/sites/default/files/publications/CW 04-15-22.pdf & http://www.econ.ucla.edu/pfajgelbaum/tradewar_1203.pdf with more detail to read.

Not sure if this will convince you or not; but it’s at least a cache of relevant information.

British band “Jungle” has been in heavy rotation for me the past ~6 months. Specifically watch their music videos and the dance choreography. I suggest playing the entire album “Volcano” as one video.

My facts were provided and cited? I’d argue your positions are the ones not related to the facts:

aerospace and military manufacturers are saying there are certain components they simply can’t manufacture here without importing from China

This is a media statement, not a fact, and not reflected in industry data nor historical examples. There’s a cost they don’t want to pay, not a hard block. Manufacturing has historically been more than able to adjust, but at a cost. In the event of a war we’d likely pay that cost, in the face of tariffs it’s up to those individual manufacturers to decide. So we might see them choose to keep importing instead of replacing certain components… But that does not then mean they couldn’t do so.

I don’t understand how you have maintained this perspective of interruptions and shipping affecting the US more than China

I didn’t claim this at all? And I won’t argue it as relevant since interrupting shipping globally is not a relevant equivalent to bilateral trade halting.

I don’t feel like you’re making arguments in good faith, or you are disregarding my claims and raising straw man arguments… Apologies in advance as I’ll likely not continue this thread.

US manufacturing output is far larger than the amount we import form China.

US manufacturing made about $2.5 Trillion in 2021: https://www.macrotrends.net/global-metrics/countries/USA/united-states/manufacturing-output

US imported from China about $0.5 Trillion in 2021 (all goods, not just manufacturing): https://www.census.gov/foreign-trade/balance/c5700.html

China could defeat most western countries without firing a single shot, just by cutting off their access to Chinese exports.

I disagree with this assumption!

We don’t rely on China, we benefit from trading with them. Some of our goods go there, we get some of their goods. If a war breaks out and that trade stops; we have plenty of manufacturing capacity. And the point of having allies is that we would expect assistance in the event of a war, so we don’t expect US manufacturing to even completely fill the gap (similarly our allies would expect the US to help if China were to target one of them… except that the current administration is alienating everyone but Russia…).

If you look another level down into what each country manufactures; the US makes a lot of military equipment, and imports a lot of consumer goods form China. Our military would not lose much capacity by a loss in trade with China, but US consumers would lose some of their consumption options. Guess which one matters when it comes to war?

I don’t support tariffs as a tool to increase American manufacturing jobs because they don’t accomplish that goal. This is not a political belief; it’s derived from evidence. Many sources available, here’s one: https://files.taxfoundation.org/20180627113002/Tax-Foundation-FF595-1.pdf

Using tariffs as a diplomatic tool is only effective in extreme cases. Diplomacy is difficult and so many things are interrelated. If a tariff threat makes China capitulate to our position on Taiwan, why not just use a tariff threat to bring China completely into line on every other position? Tariffs are blunt, and cause harm (economic and diplomatic) to broad areas of both countries unrelated to the specific issue. Topical example: sanctions on Russia did not change their position on Ukraine, even though those were far more severe than just a blanket X% tariff and were supported by many other countries (multi-lateral as opposed to uni-lateral). If we want to influence China’s position on Taiwan, diplomacy is more effective than tariffs.

I don’t care about being “sexually desirable” to as many women as possible; I only care about being desirable to enough people that finding someone to start a relationship with is a practical possibility. This post is about my lack of understanding of how sexual attraction fundamentally works. I’m essentially asking if sexual attraction is highly polarized—targeting either strong masculine or strong feminine presentations—with minimal reaction to more androgynous presentations.

Added emphasis, as it kind of answers your own question. Being sexy to someone isn’t universal. There’s certainly things more women tend to find sexy; but it’s not an absolute by any means. Think of all the happily married people you have met (assuming you live in a fairly large community). Or even consider all of those in long-term relationships. Not every man in every relationship is super fit and sexy, right? Nor were all the men such when they first met their partner. It is not a requirement! And if you know enough such couples you’ll realize appearances of the men in them run the gambit from hot-bod to dad-bod and beyond. And if fact most people in happy relationships are far from the media archetype of “sexy male” as you allude to in your original post.

Not every woman is a lingerie supermodel; not every man is a bodybuilder or Hollywood heartthrob. Yet so many people are able to find relationships where they each find each other sexually desirable. Just randomly scroll through strangers (real poeple) on a social media of your choice and you’ll see happy couples with all variety of body types and appearances.

The best way to cheer yourself up is to try to cheer somebody else up. -Mark Twain

Use a secret manager?

Cert is a secret, add a small agent to your containers that pings your secret manager and gets back the current cert. Then saves / imports it (or whatever is appropriate).

For those not keeping up: this is the fallout from Erdogan ignoring economics and keeping interest rates low for years; only in the past year or so having conceding to reality and finally letting rates rise. They’ll likely continue suffering fallout from his prior stance on interest rates for the remainder of the decade.

From last summer:

https://www.cnn.com/2023/06/22/economy/turkey-hikes-interest-rates/index.html

and

https://www.cnbc.com/2023/06/14/turkeys-erdogan-agrees-to-monetary-policy-turnaround-under-simsek.html

The answer to regulatory capture isn’t prohibition though, because prohibition essentially means unregulated.

Prohibition is effectively the same as a tax on gambling from the point of view of gamblers, but the tax is just the additional effort people have to spend to not get caught or fines when they do. The difference is there’s no tax revenue for the governing authority to redistribute, fines go almost exclusively to pay for enforcement.