I fully forgot about thousandths even though I see them all the time as “mils”. Definitely metric but worse.

looks just random and devoid of any logic.

You literally just described the non-random logic.

*at sea level, assuming pure water

It’s intuitive with respect to water. Applying it to anything else is exactly the same as the Fahrenheit scale: you associate various things with numbers.

On a cosmic scale 100C is practically freezing.

Sounds fun, now update every computer system simultaneously to a new date format.

Fractions are pretty good for quick ratios, which is why it’s popular in carpentry, but I’d never call it “more precise” than decimal numbers. Anything that needs tighter tolerances than 1/16" is probably going to use metric measurements.

I will say that for most people it doesn’t impact their life either way. If the Imperial system (or the modern American system based on it) were truly inferior they would have been replaced but it’s mostly an issue in laboratories and engineering.

Bad decisions about the cost and timing of console releases and failure to support older systems. Nothing to do with IP management or legal decisions.

People don’t have to be absolute identical clones for it to be a monoculture.

On a planetary scale, hundreds of millions if not billions, they absolutely do. There are simply too many variables for people to crystallize around.

I think you’re vastly underestimating how quickly culture deviates and develops. A planetary mono-culture would require every person to grow up in exactly the same circumstances. No stratification from class or gender or sex or age or ethnicity. No varying seasons or biomes or climates. Exposed to all the same media at exactly the same time, and all with the same intelligence and personality and ability to interpret it.

In short, the only time a mono-culture makes even a tiny bit of sense is when it’s a hivemind. (Or mind-control but that’s pretty much the same thing)

Mars has no biomes because Mars has no known life. You can’t skip the “bio” part of the word.

And it’s an incredible bit.

Same way it’s always worked. Your best shot is by knowing someone in the field who can get you in the door for an interview.

Until you solve scarcity, one way or another, reject as decadent the image of the angelic lofty scholar who learns for the sake of learning.

No, fuck that. I will continue to consider learning for its own sake among the most interesting and important things a person can do.

Politics and society are not and cannot be separated.

If there’s no wealth then there’s no “housing market”, going full classless-stateless-moneyless socialism is such a huge departure from the current state of things it doesn’t make sense to even have this conversation about it. (And giving to charity is all well and good but I generally consider charity to be addressing a failure of society and as long as we’re in fantasy land there should be no need for charitable giving)

Also: weaseling out of addressing any of the holes in your position by changing the subject instead of explaining any detail about your stance is weak.

I’m planning on my end-of-life being real cheap. I’d prefer a clean exit over a long decline, especially if I start losing my faculties. (Not much history of dementia in my family, thankfully)

That’s something I can agree with. I think there’s a very reasonable compromise somewhere between “children can’t have a better life than their parents” and “five families own everything forever, including several governments.” $500 million still seems pretty damn high I’d cut that to 50 or even 5.

I think there’s something morally wrong with choosing not to contribute to your family or community past your own life but that is assuming your descendants are worth a damn. “A society grows great when old men plants trees” and all that.

Let’s play this out. Inheritance is illegal and you’re hyping up a self-regulating market so I’m assuming you think their assets should be sold mandatorily rather than seized by the state for redistribution (unclear what happens with liquid assets in this situation but you didn’t give much to work on). So instead of passing huge fortunes to their kids their assets are instead acquired by whoever is willing invest the most capital. They get an extra house that they can then rent out to collect passive income from someone “starting from scratch”, someone who cannot possibly out-gain the person who owns property. Eventually the landlord (more of a land baron at this point) will die and their various holdings will be scooped up by smaller landlords (but never by young families) thus perpetuating a new fun cycle of oligarchs in a system that rewards the fastest people to abandon all morals in favor of personal gain, and there’s no incentive for selflessness because you can’t leave anything behind anyway. Pure personal gain and consumption.

It should be illegal to provide for your family? Every man for themself?

Assuming the most generous interpretation of your statement I still think it’s putting the cart before the horse. Generationally accrued wealth is currently one of the only paths out of destitution for many people. Inheritance should be unnecessary but until such a time as adequate housing is guaranteed familial property has to be a thing. (I wouldn’t be on board even in a proper post-scarcity society, homes are more than just places and personal property is accepted in all but the most extreme interpretations of socialism.)