Be opposed to a central authority.
Have to establish the central authority 8 years after your founding because the states couldn’t agree on a shared currency and you have no way to repay your war debt.
Back date the country’s founding to the beginning of the war anyway

I use a different digit.

Sounds like the breakfast of champions to me.

In the 13th century, breakfast when eaten sometimes consisted of a piece of rye bread and a bit of cheese. Morning meals would not include any meat, and would likely include 0.4 imperial gallons (1.8 L) of low alcohol-content beers. Uncertain quantities of bread and ale could have been consumed in between meals.

Reject modernity, return to tradition

Just take 10 minutes (maybe make it an hour depending on your reading pace) and have a look at the first paragraph of the Wikipedia article

Like unless you’re a monarchist or some other weird regressive form of conservative, you are a liberal.

Someone linked a thread here the other day and there was a single user repeatedly spamming even mild pushback (only located by sorting by controversial) with “A vote is a vote.” That’s the level of analysis we’re operating on. It doesn’t matter because points are fungible and the blue team is going to score more. Everything else is out the window because of Project 2025.

The age of context is over. Now is the time of the coconut tree.

At this point it’s just Dick Cheney with a printout of a picture of Dick Cheney and that’s working fine.

True facts

They’re currently settling the Amazon, so I don’t think we should attribute a whole lot of winning to them.

We’re just perpetually high on all those casomorphins

Synthesis: Everything that happens is the same as everything that has already happened; nothing is new under the sun; history is a palimpsest worn to translucent thinness by constant revision that does nothing to alter the shape of our being.

That’s more or less what I figured

What does she mean with “Get this deal done”?

It’s a dumb take, though. The US used to have a subsidy program to prevent oversupply and overworking the fields. Farmers could incentives to fallow their land, which reduces erosion and soil nutrient depletion, instead of pushing it all into production. When Reagan’s Secretary of Ag turned it around into production subsidies, commodity prices crashed, farmers got bought out by larger agribusinesses because they couldn’t compete, and now the Great Plains is being plowed into the Gulf of Mexico. We’re headed for a second Dust Bowl and it’s a direct result of these policies.

Be a plant.

Put all your nutrients on a thin dead layer on the outside where they’re inaccessible to the live cells.

???

Profit.

FWIW if you ever decide to discontinue you need to be vigilant about overeating. Eating a single 2,000+/- calorie meal a day is a lot at once and can also mess with your perceptions of food. It works so long as you can stick to it

Redditor
LLM

Removed by mod

I am well aware of what you are talking about. I am just trying to create a general understanding without resorting to ideology.

Why are you assuming that hunger has ideologically neutral solutions?

I already assumed we had enough technological capability

We do

that humanity as a whole shares the interest to solve this problem

It most certainly does not

What else remains?

The fact that some very powerful and very rich people stay powerful and rich by keeping other, less powerful and less rich people hungry

The inability to translate those capabilities into achieving the desired goals

We have the ability. The cost of addressing global hunger is in the billions. We could do it tomorrow with the stroke of a pen. The calories are there, the funds exist.

How else would you be able to make sense of the results without resorting to specifics of human history?

I don’t understand the question. How do you make sense of the results without resorting to the specifics of human history? Everything is the way it is now because of things that happened then.

But if you manage to work this general model, whatever answer you get albeit general would apply to every context.

There isn’t a model here. There’s a very facile understanding of the problem that leaves out its major driver. Researchers have already progressed well beyond this level of thinking and have proposed solutions. The reasons the solutions are still not being implemented is obvious, and people have pointed that out as well. This whole train of thought is like walking into a dark room and trying to figure out why it’s dark without looking at the switch. “Gosh, we’ve changed the bulb, we replaced the fixture, we’ve checked all the wiring, we’ve ensured the house has power, we’ve done everything! Why won’t the light turn on?” If you insist on leaving ideology out of it you’re never going to get to the answer because ideology is the answer.