Or a dedicated server
UC Davis has a video on how to build one.
I was raised to love my neighbor, to respond to hate with compassion, to tell the truth even when it hurt. I was taught that these were Christian values and by extension, American ones. We were the country that believed in freedom of thought, the integrity of history, and moral courage.
But now I see many of the same people who taught me those values embracing a movement built on denial, grievance, and revisionist history. They’ve tied themselves to a man who mocks truth, glorifies cruelty, and demands loyalty over integrity.
And the saddest part? We used to look at other nations and say, “That could never happen here.” But it is happening here. And it’s not being forced on us, we’re choosing it.
The cost of that betrayal isn’t some distant consequence we’ll face down the road. It’s already here. The values they abandoned didn’t slowly fade, they were cast aside, willingly, and replaced with something hollow. This isn’t a detour. It’s the destination. And the people who once preached righteousness have no intention of turning back.
What I love most about this is he works in health care insurance. His boss tells him he's not denying enough claims. Very American indeed.
... what?
Yeah, that's a totally fair concern and is one of the points the episode addresses. Researchers acknowledged that the definition has broadened, but they also emphasized that it reflects a better understanding of autism as a spectrum. It does make the label less specific, but it's also helped a lot of people. Especially women and people of color. It helped them get more accurate diagnoses instead of being misdiagnosed or ignored.
Overall, it's a stat worth celebrating as it means more people are getting the support they needed all along.
The Science Vs. podcast just did an episode on this.
https://open.spotify.com/episode/2eKgmLJZrEKTbVzCVYzp0u
Spoiler: It's exactly as the meme describes. Autism rates are rising not because more people are becoming autistic, but because we’ve expanded the definition and improved how we recognize and diagnose it.
I read the WSJ article and she is absolutely infuriating. Her reasoning contains several fallacies:
False Cause:
"It was absolute fearmongering at its worst"
She blames political messaging instead of considering that vague legal language created legitimate professional uncertainty.
Straw Man:
"There will be some comments like, 'Well, thank God we have abortion services,' even though what I went through wasn't an abortion"
This is particularly frustrating. Advocates aren't celebrating her needing an "abortion", they're pointing out her experience is exactly what they predicted: doctors hesitating due to legal uncertainty. She had to argue with staff, pull up laws on her phone, and call the governor's office during a medical emergency. That's the system breakdown advocates warned about, not a misunderstanding of medical definitions.
False Dilemma:
"We have turned the conversation about women's healthcare into two camps: pink hats and pink ribbons. It's either breast cancer or abortion."
This drastically oversimplifies complex healthcare policy into just two opposing sides and the irony is staggering. It's like a company ignoring safety advocates' warnings about a confusing manual, then when accidents happen, blaming those advocates for 'scaring' workers instead of fixing the manual.
She lived the very scenario abortion rights advocates had been warning about all along, yet somehow, in her mind, the problem isn’t the law, it’s the people who tried to stop it from hurting her in the first place.
You forgot to put "Trump's Third Term" at the bottom to finish the timeline.
I won’t defend Schumer's choice here. It was a bad call, and the anger from House Democrats and the base was completely justified. You're right that the party leadership sometimes folds when they should fight. They make strategic decisions that feel disconnected from the urgency the moment demands. And yes, Democrats have corporate-aligned figures who blunt the force of reform, but that is also a reality of our current system that we have to work within.
But, sticking to your example, there is a key difference: when Democrats cave, it’s often to avoid causing harm, like a shutdown that would devastate working people. When Republicans cave, it’s to secure more tax cuts, more deregulation, and more authoritarian power. The intent and the outcome are not the same, even if the compromise leaves a bad taste in everyone’s mouth.
It also matters that Democrats have factions pushing from within. The anger from House Dems, from AOC, from the base, that’s real pressure that can move things. Republicans don’t have that kind of internal accountability. Their party punishes dissent and rewards obstruction.
And while it's easy to say “they always have excuses,” the reality is that even when Democrats had a trifecta in 2021, their margin in the Senate was literally 50-50. One or two bad actors (like Manchin or Sinema) could tank an entire agenda, and did. That's not an excuse. That's a math problem, and the only way around it is bigger, more engaged progressive coalitions.
So yes, Schumer failed in that moment (and many others). Yes, we should be furious. But walking away or writing off the party entirely means handing power back to a movement that’s not just flawed. It’s actively hostile to democracy, human rights, and the planet. That’s not moral purity. That’s surrender.
I’m frustrated with the reflexive "both sides are equally bad" response that shuts down any meaningful analysis of what's actually happening in our politics.
I'm not naive about the Democratic Party's problems. They struggle with internal divisions, sometimes cave to corporate pressure, and they’ve made compromises that disappointed their base. But when I look at voting records, policy proposals, and legislative priorities, I see meaningful differences that have real consequences for people's lives.
On issues I care about (healthcare access, climate action, voting rights, ext.) one party consistently proposes solutions and votes for them when they have the numbers. The other party doesn’t just oppose these policies, they fight tooth and nail to undermine them, delay them, or dismantle them entirely. That’s not a matter of opinion. That’s a matter of public record.
When Democrats fail to deliver, it’s often because they lack sufficient majorities or face procedural roadblocks. When they do have power, they’ve passed significant legislation on infrastructure, climate investment, and healthcare expansion. Meanwhile, when Republicans have unified control, their priorities have been tax cuts for the wealthy and rolling back environmental protections.
I understand the appeal of cynicism. It can feel sophisticated to dismiss all politicians as equally corrupt. But that cynicism serves the interests of those who benefit from the status quo.
If you can't tell the difference between someone trying to reform a broken system and someone actively working to keep it broken, you're not offering insight. You're providing cover for obstruction.
Does this mean Democrats are perfect? Of course not. Should we hold them accountable when they fall short? Absolutely. But pretending there are no meaningful differences between the parties just because neither is perfect makes it harder to build the coalitions we need to create the change we actually want to see.
Luigi actually saved lives though. The assassination of Brian Thompson was a stated symbolic protest against insurance practices that deny life‑saving care intended to spotlight and stop those denials. His act sparked intense public outrage media attention regulatory scrutiny and investor backlash which pressured UnitedHealth to soften its claim‑denial practices and approve more life‑saving care. That shift led to higher costs. Lower profits triggered the largest one‑day stock drop in 25 years and prompted a class‑action lawsuit by investors.
Luigi set out to right actual wrong and literally saved lives in the process
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/unitedhealth-investors-lawsuit-brian-thompson-luigi-mangione/
Just so others know that is an actual quote.
"I want to encourage you with some substance that we are in the process of the second American Revolution, which will remain bloodless if the left allows it to be.” - Heritage Foundation President Kevin Roberts
This reminds me of the Light Grenade from Mom and Dad Save the World.
Yeah. Should be suits pulling them down. I really don't like that this denigrates the wonderful people who actually do the work.
This isn't about pouring yourself out for an employer that doesn't care. It's not about "going above and beyond." It's not about grinding harder or giving more than you're getting. That's not the standard I'm talking about.
What I am talking about is the foundation. I am talking about the basic, essential qualities that every relationship (personal or professional) is built on: reliability, respect, integrity, follow-through.
If you say, "I'll be there at 5," then be there at 5. That has nothing to do with giving more or going the extra mile. It's about whether people can trust your word. Whether your actions line up with what you say. Whether others (teammates, friends, partners, family) know that your word has value.
When you've built that foundation of trust, life's inevitable curveballs become manageable and explainable. When you have a genuine emergency, when circumstances beyond your control interfere, people believe you. They extend grace because your track record speaks for itself. But if you're consistently unreliable, every excuse (legitimate or not) gets met with skepticism. You've lost the benefit of the doubt.
The employee I mentioned wasn't being asked to sacrifice for a system. He was being asked to keep his word. He said he would be there. He wasn't. He has never been mistreated or underpaid. The opposite actually. He was hired with no experience into a well-paying, supportive environment. Every failure has been met with encouragement from leadership. But honestly? That's not even the point. Because the values I'm talking about matter regardless of whether the system is fair or not.
Why? Because these values belong to you. You take them with you wherever you go. They make you stronger, clearer, more capable of building relationships that matter. They are what open doors (not just in jobs, but in life). And they’re what create the trust that protects you when things go wrong.
I'm not calling people to give more to bad systems. I'm calling people to give more to themselves. To build a foundation they can stand on so when they do need to call out injustice, advocate for change, or walk away, they do it from a place of strength, not reaction. Not out of anger, but out of clarity.
So yes, I am trying to convince people of something. Not to serve power. But to be powerful.
And the truth is, you can't build anything strong (anywhere) if people can't count on you. That's not a corporate value. That's a human one.
What you shared lands really close to home for me. I’m right there with you. My ADHD is the “leave‑your‑keys‑in‑the‑fridge, miss‑the‑turn‑you‑take‑every‑day” flavor, and when you layer in a hefty dose of imposter syndrome, it can feel like the whole world sees “irresponsible” when I’m just wrestling with my own wiring.
Over the years I’ve had to build some pretty extreme guardrails to keep myself on track:
- The 15‑minute rule. I aim to arrive everywhere a quarter hour early. It buys me a buffer for the inevitable “where did I put my badge?” scramble and lets me start calm.
- Alarm orchestras. My phone is a symphony of labeled reminders: “Leave NOW,” “Send daily status,” “Prep tomorrow’s kit.” If it dings, I do the thing right then (no bargaining, no “I’ll remember in five”). Future‑me is not a reliable assistant.
- Immediate action. If a task pops into my head and will take less than two minutes, I do it on the spot. That tiny rule has saved me from a mountain of forgotten follow‑ups.
- Radical transparency. This is my most important rule for myself. I tell my team straight up: “ADHD is my software; here’s how I patch the bugs. If you spot a glitch, flag me.” People are surprisingly supportive when they understand the why so I tell everyone.
None of these tricks erase my problems, but they translate good intentions into results the team can feel. And every time a coworker says, “I know I can count on you,” even when I am too harsh in judging myself.
Your story is a powerful reminder that what looks like disrespect can be a neurological hurdle. I hope anyone reading our thread pauses before labeling someone lazy or careless. Sometimes the most respectful thing we can do for ourselves and for each other is to seek understanding, build systems that work for our brains, and keep rooting for one another’s progress.
Thanks again for sharing. You’re not alone, and the fact that you care this much tells me you’re exactly the kind of teammate people want in their corner.
I can feel how strongly you feel about this, and I get it. A lot of people have been burned by workplaces where “teamwork” is just code for giving more while getting less. That kind of exploitation needs to be called out. People have every right to protect their time and energy in those environments. I support that fully.
But that’s not what happened here.
In this story, I wasn’t defending a corporation. I wasn’t demanding loyalty to a job. I was calling someone up to a standard I hold for myself and offer to my team, not out of obedience, but out of integrity. I’ve never talked down to this guy. I’ve treated him with patience, honesty, and consistency. I’ve modeled the values I believe in and asked him to rise, not for the company, but for his own sake. Because that’s what respect actually looks like in action.
You called me “the fucking problem,” accused me of guilt-tripping people, and painted me as some kind of corporate enforcer. That’s not just inaccurate. It’s unfair. And I’m going to push back on it.
Not out of ego. Not out of anger. But out of self-respect.
I believe we should challenge broken systems and still choose who we want to be in the middle of them. I believe in calling people higher, not because they owe it to a job, but because they owe it to themselves. And I believe that treating people with dignity, even when they lash out, is still worth doing.
So no, I’m not going to return the insult. But I am going to stand up for myself. Because this, right here, is what it looks like to respond with strength, not submission. With clarity, not cruelty.
You don’t have to agree with my take, but I hope this helps clarify it.
I want to clarify something I’ve been trying to express in this conversation.
I’m not saying anyone owes loyalty, effort, or integrity to a company that doesn’t respect them. If a workplace is unfair or exploitative, people have every right to disengage or walk away. That’s not just valid, it’s necessary.
But that’s not what I’m talking about.
What I’m talking about is you. Who you choose to be, no matter what kind of environment you’re in. Are you on time? Do you follow through on your word? Are you consistent and accountable. Even when no one’s watching?
This isn’t about your boss. This isn’t about your company. This is about whether you want to be the kind of person who can be trusted, counted on, and respected by yourself.
When you live by values like integrity, honesty, and reliability, not because anyone’s rewarding you, but because they reflect who you are, you gain something real. You grow. You get stronger. You carry that into everything else in your life, your relationships, your work, your reputation, your self-worth.
This isn’t submission. This isn’t compliance. You can absolutely reject broken systems while still choosing to live by your own standards. That’s what I mean by self-respect. That’s where the power is.
So when I told my guy, “I’m disappointed,” it wasn’t about control or discipline. It was about hope. I’ve tried to show him what it looks like to show up, not because someone’s cracking a whip, but because you want to be the kind of person who shows up.
I hold him to that standard because I see what’s possible in him and I believe in what those values can unlock for anyone.
This is not about imposing expectations. It’s an invitation. To rise. To grow. To build something in yourself that no one can take away.
And yes, I believe we need more of that in the world. Not because we’re told to, but because we choose to.
I made this comment to my wife recently. I have a total of 2600 photos on my Google account going back 18 years. 1/2 of those are of my cats. I've only had cats for 4 years.