InputZero

This comment is for anyone who is experiencing nuclear-phobia, kinda like I do, to which I strictly mean living with a state of fear or dread about a nuclear apocalypse, this development does puts the world one step closer. It's okay to be scared by that, I know I am. It doesn't mean the world is one step away from a nuclear apocalypse. The world has been closer to the brink of nuclear war before and we're all still here. It's okay to breathe.

While I do agree that it, at times, definitely stepped into 'dumb femminism' as you put it. I also acknowledge that it was a movie and to do a discussion on feminism justice it would require a lot more than 2 hours. So a lot got simplified, sometimes too much. I disagree with you that it was a constant attack towards men. The movie went wayyyyy out of its way to make it clear they were attacking patriarchal systems, not men in general. That's Ken's whole arc, he's suffering under patriarchy too. He just also gets the benefits of the patruarchy while he's suffering. If I had any criticism about the film it was how much it tried to avoid criticizing capitalism and corporate culture's role.

I'm not a financial expert, so someone who is please step in and correct anything that I say is wrong. I need to learn too.

It's because the government's debt is also a surplus. Government debt isn't like personal debt because the government debt is mostly through selling bonds that the government issues. Most of that debt is owned by American citizens, in one way or another, who buy those bonds. Most of that $34 trillion is money the government owes it's people, or at least the Americans who hold those bonds.

It's not really money you owe but it's money that is owed to you. Well actually the billionaire class who can actually afford to buy these bonds but hey, that's Capitalism baby.

Canada couldn't afford it, their monopoly money is worth almost nothing.

Playing our hidden games on the school's network. Good times. Back then if you knew a few lines of code you could give your session administrator privileges. That was when internet security existed because so few people knew how to use a computer, let alone a local network or the internet. An entire computer lab playing against another entire computer lab in whatever those games were called. The most popular was light cycles, an open source Tron clone.

Reading that made me feel like I lost The Game. That's a bit of Internet history I am happy to forget.

The government cares quite a bit.

It really reminds me of all those static and velocity pressure calculations I had to do in undergrad, until I got the degree.

If it were only as easy as flipping a switch. I wish I could be as idealistic as you are right now, I used to be. Part of my journey fighting injustice how I think I best can has been to learn how to hold my idealisms hand and let that lead me. Rather than listen to it's endless screaming. If I didn't I would have burnt out long ago.

I guess I just want you to understand that the people I'm speaking for, most of my former professors and my colleagues, share your concerns and are trying. They're trying to stop testing on animals, they're trying to stop industry from running ahead of them, they're trying to protect the environment just as much as humans.

There is so much working against my professors from developing it, to myself and my colleagues trying to enforce the regulations proposed. In this system we need funding and government support to do any of that which we just don't have. The only ones with enough money to do that are the ones who have the most to lose from us doing our jobs. So it just doesn't happen.

Oh I absolutely agree that it is extremely stupid that industry is allowed to move faster than what toxicologist can research. It makes me very angry but if I start telling people this I just get called a leftist nut. Everyone assumes that someone is making sure they're safe. Well I sat in those people's classes for six years and they do not get enough funding to live up to the publics expectation. Part of me thinks that's by design, because poorly funded toxicology research is big businesess' wet dream.

Regardless of how much you and I might want it to be different that's not how it is right now and there are problems that need to be solved right now. It's not an either, or, that's a false dichotomy. Abandoning current toxicology research in order to prioritize advancing research methods means that until those research methods have matured, industry would have an opportunity to go without scrutiny. It's bad enough nowadays when there is barely enough funding to pay attention, imagine a decade where no one is paying attention to the new things industry comes up with while those methods are developed.

I don't like animal testing, none of my professors did either. Who do you think taught me to respect and understand why we test on animals. Some of them were doing research into new methods like you described, others were testing new chemicals with established methods. It isn't a dichotomy, at least in-so-far-as toxicology research is concerned. I don't have any experience in pharmacology or cosmetics.