I am now inside my desk. I die a slow and painful death.

mine is similar, they laugh at my jokes and can also continue them

How do you know their partner is a doofus?

I was 19 when I had my so-far worst one, now 28. I dealt with it by going trail running. I had an intramural trail running club I was helping to lead at the time, and wound up captaining for a couple of years, and I would go extra hard with the lead group because at the time it felt like pushing myself through the pain helped my mental suffering (and it was healthier than self-harm). About six months after the breakup I set a five-mile time at a community race that was a good two minutes faster than my previous PR, and which I haven’t come close to since.

I also had really supportive friends and wrote some really angsty songs.

That being said, I also almost had to drop out of college because my grades tanked, and only got to stay because I was lucky enough to qualify into the music department on a good audition for a probationary quarter, and then get my shit together long enough to pass the classes I needed to declare the major. So your mileage may vary.

Yeah, like I said, I didn’t see any concrete evidence of what I would expect from the name of their organization, and the actual policies they support are mostly things that I also support (increasing density, investing in infrastructure, generally pro-transit, stuff about healthcare, education, allowing remote work, etc). I guess I just find it weird that they’re supporting all of that specifically because it gets more people to have kids, and not because they just make people’s lives better, which is my reasoning. Maybe it’s my personal bias as somebody who doesn’t want kids.

This is good news.

The framing of the organization being called “stop population decline” strikes me as weird given that the global population is far from declining, and either already has surpassed or will soon surpass eight billion. It is true that data is more granular than that: some demographics have more children than others, which leads to shifts over time. All of this is normal and, if not good, at worst neutral. The problem arises when by far the most common voices to say anything about “population decline” or “overpopulation” or anything like that are typically using those terms as dogwhistles for white supremacy/Great Replacement bullshit.

I’ll grant that their About page seems to mostly be stuff I agree with, and from a cursory look at their website, I’m not seeing evidence of white supremacy on it. But idk, the vibes are still off for me.

I’m from southern California. 'Nuff said.

It’s not Chrome, and it does everything I want.

how about a bicycle? that has two gear shifters, not just one

Coal rolling was bad for the environment. So they outlawed a large amount of car tuning. This causes damage to the car culture and a good hobby for a large number of citizens.

the “downside” you state is actually a benefit to society

Water, being a limited resource in California, made it finable to water your lawn or wash your car in a drought, even though farming and business use 96% of total water usage. Normal people water usage isn’t going to solve the problem

i do agree that agricultural and business uses are a bigger deal than lawns or car washing in terms of water use, and the fact that almonds are farmed in california is a goddamn travesty, to name but one example. however, lawns cause or exacerbate way more problems to a much greater extent than you probably realize, and reducing how many of them we have, ideally in favor of local ecology if not just denser land use patterns, is a much greater benefit than you’re giving it credit for. california’s zoning codes have also been improving in this regard, though they’re still… not great. point is that i do agree with you that that policy doesn’t focus where it’s really needed, but it’s also not as useless as you think.

Gun policies that dont allow suppressors, short barrel rifles, etc, but in reality, the vast majority of gun crime and accidents are all based around handguns.

a fair critique, but also, far fewer californians per capita die to gun violence vs. the national average. i’m sure other factors play into that, but it certainly isn’t evidence that the policy hasn’t helped.

now, i’ll give you two examples of my own. early in governor gavin’s term, he was given a bill called “complete streets” that would have dramatically improved pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure throughout the whole state, and he vetoed it. and that sucked major ass. but then he went ahead and signed sb50, which forces all municipalities in the state to build some actual goddamn housing, and specifically dense housing near transit. and i’m a huge fan of that. san jose has really jumped on it with gusto and has actually had their average rent drop somewhat, although the bill is still relatively new and its benefits aren’t likely to really be felt for a while yet. my main criticism here is how tons of the cities here are so nimbyed out the ass that it took the state government’s intervention to do literally anything about the housing crisis.

there is much to critique about california, but not all california critiques are created equal.

Crazy expensive: yes.

Californians are annoying and elitist: well, a disproportionate number of annoying and elitist rich people live here, but I think they give the rest of us an undeserved bad name. That is my personal opinion and not a definitive, objective statement of fact, but I feel like I have a decent read on it as a lifelong Californian.

Has big social problems in cities: name me one state that doesn’t.