Rent it to farmers for a few more years. If there is an economic boom then you can sell to developers.

>:{

Looking at Democratic donations lists to see if he’s there.

Iron Oxide. Everyone else is wrong.

Fake news, everyone knows Putin is on Telegram.

Don’t look up events in Myanmar.

Accurate tho

Personally I do like the ideas behind Snap/Flatpak. I think the sandboxing is a huge deal and will improve security going forward.

Most people are right handed. Which means they will jab with the left, and the jab is your most important punch.

Be sure to visit the privacy communities for tips on how to keep said secrets.

A country is just a territory. Citizenship is a database entry. Soldier is a job.

That was a good and well structured video on the matter.

Some things you can do is to start getting your intimidate family to start taking digital privacy seriously. It helps get the ball rolling on “I would join Signal, but no one I know uses it” and such. We need to start the police state of information. Police work is largely about informants and intimidation. Keeping our data safe means they don’t know who to target and makes their job that much harder. Further it better allows for our political and civil disobedience.

It also helps to get in shape and learn some boxing. Its good for all round fitness and confidence building.

Also, on the topic of people watching

https://juntosseguros.com/

https://padlet.com/PeopleoverPapers/people-over-papers-anonymous-an-nimo-lf0l47ljszbto2uj

Its a two player game.

THE NARRATIVE OF ALVAR NUÑEZ CABEÇA DE VACA

These are some digitized primary sources. Feel free to read them and discuss what is “not actual history” with the class.

The diary of a Napoleonic foot soldier is also another example.

Could any of them have made stuff up? Maybe, even if they didn’t mean to. At a minimum we can say that their stories are real to them and are grounded in what we know from other sources. As far as the French Soldier example I am sure we might have a parallel Russian or Englishman to pair with it.

Also there are no wrong answers; just answers with supporting context.

@cecilkorik elaborates very well.

I believe I have addressed that in my answer. Still I will add this. By definition a primary source is not “re-written”. Note I did not write unbiased. A bit of a Socratic approach: do the defeated embellish their stories?

Because I think its worth re-stating for any social science:

Also there are no wrong answers; just answers with supporting context.

It really helped me that I read some history and thought about it for more than five minutes. Ayn Rand, she is like the idea of selling your house before it goes under the sea due to climate change, makes sense if you don’t add the real world context back into it. A conclusion can follow logically from its premise and assumptions, but that does not ensure the inputs were correct.

I like to ask Libertarians, when I bump into them, what happened between some date to a year of your choosing that prevented the market from developing its own solution.

You do so by reading primary sources. From both the victors and the losers. On the losing side this can be difficult as their stuff is less likely to be preserved (intentionally or not). It is important to remember that every side will have its own bias, but this is often also shaped with time, so it is important to get sources that are as close as possible to the events before they can be mythologized. Also there are no wrong answers; just answers with supporting context.

Reminds me of when I was a dumb teen and had a bit of a Libertarian phase. Glad I grew up.

That is irrelevant because they are also removing schooling for the children that will be taking those jobs.

~Supposed to be read somewhat /s but also not really /s because that is the plan~