Cocodapuf

Don't dehumanize people who disagree with you, this is the wrong path.

I can't even begin to unpack the implications.

You've probably finished unpacking them...

Things will fall from the sky, mostly stainless steel, some carbon fiber, some ceramic tile. They could be falling in a bunch of different places, even populated ones (Though most will fall in the ocean). Most of the volatiles (propellant, pressurizing gases, hydraulic fluid, etc) have already escaped, so not much of that is coming down. It's highly unlikely that debris will hurt anybody, but it is possible.

Some nations will be justifiably mad and there's a remote chance someone gets hurt. But that's about the end of the implications.

I understand that, it can't be. Because fusion power generation hasn't all been worked out yet. Unlike fission. That's my point.

Also, once fusion does work, it will still be the most expensive way to generate energy man has ever devised, so there's that too.

Well, the first ones didn't fly at all, they usually just killed the inventor.

That's basically where we are today with fusion, they don't work at all yet. Luckily it's not killing people.

Well, really it's the opposite, nuclear works already. So why not just build nuclear plants at 1/20 the cost? (and actually get some net positive energy)

Just saying...

Agreed. Plus, when talking about that reactor you get to say "stellarator", which is always fun.

Eh, fusion isn't that complicated. You push things together and heat them up until they get even hotter on their own. That's all that's happening.

I feel like the awesome back to future reference was missed completely.

Why not secede?

Actually, if this rhetoric gets much worse, I'll be in favor of a succession "dead man's clause". We could put forward a referendum question on the next state ballot to explicitly ask the public, a question something like "In the event that the federal government were to declare war on Canada, or demand territory from Canada, or assume control of Canadian territory or engage in military action against Canadian forces or civilians, are you in favor of recognizing federal authority to make such actions, or conversely, are you in favor of denying that authority and refusing to participate in or support any such actions."

I mean, that's just off the cuff, you would of course still need to get real specific with all the language and make it absolutely clear what a yes vote or no vote does. But if states ran referendums like that, it would make it exceedingly clear to our governors and sensors where the public's opinions fall, and what their duty should be. And so then if something that truly idiotic were to happen, we'd all be prepared.

I'm more interested in becoming a Canadian province.

And I dare say, if the US did officially go to war with Canada, New England (and probably New York) would be likely to switch sides.

And they would in all likelihood bring with them all military bases and forces within their territory.

So are people treating this as a generalized sign of inflation, or are people actually worried about eggs?

Because if you're treating this as a gauge of inflation, it's a bad one, as there's a bird flu outbreak greatly affecting egg prices.

And if it's just concern about eggs... I don't get it. I mean, I think our household eats a lot of eggs, but a lot is like 2-3 dozen a week. And if eggs cost $2 more than usual, well, that's $6 a week. Meh? I doubt this is breaking the bank for many people.

"Putin take the wheel".