EdEarl

Seems to me many restaurants have similar requirements for something to keep food hot. If it were easy, you could get it. You really didn't specify enough. What temperatures, low and high, are acceptable, how much mass must be kept hot, what kind of mass, and how quickly does it cool now degrees/min. Can the mass be completely insulated, or will some of it be exposed to the environment. All that may not be enough, it is necessary to know how many calories/minute are lost to the environment, which you may not be able to measure. I have a stainless steel thermos-cup that keeps my tea warm for about 12 hours, starting too hot to drink. It is closed on top, but opened enough to sip occasionally. If you can fully insulate, it will probably be your least expensive option. If insulating is not an option, a solution may be quite expensive.

I believe POTUS is a unique job, with some things that are common from year to year, but many important things are changing rapidly as technology and culture change. One can learn to manage things that do not change or change slowly, but no one can predict those spontaneous things that must be managed creatively. I expect a president to be able to hire staff to manage commonplace things, with presidential oversight, and I expect the President personally work the unusual ones. There is no school that teaches how to write a hit song or win a Nobel prize; similarly, there is no job to prepare for the unique parts of being President. How did Lincoln prepare to be President? Preparation may keep a mediocre President from failure, but it can never teach one how to do great things.

Yes, not overtly threaten with nucs.

My first choice was Bernie Sanders, but he didn't get the Democratic nomination. I don't know of any other professional politicians who don't take PAC money and have a chance to be elected, whether or not I think they are competent to be President. In the future, I have reduced my critical requirements to three: can he/she win, will he/she work to eliminate PACs and big money in politics, and will he/she work to stop greenhouse emissions. If there were multiple candidates to choose from that satisfy my critical requirements, I have secondary issues to determine which I'd like better. Has there ever been a presidential candidate that satisfied my three critical requirements?

being an abused child of three

I think we should draft Alfred E. Neuman.

Much of Puerto Rico has been without power for four months, and many of its citizens have relocated to the US, especially Florida. The Kotch brothers are funding a little aid for these displaced people to provide essentials, including English lessons. Seems odd, considering they think medicare expenditures are wasted, IIRC.

There may be similar politicians here. One might say Bernie Sanders does things for his constituents and is reelected, but politicians like him are rare in Washington. Most want to avoid being seen thus, they blow smoke and abuse us from behind. Then they bribe us with a token and expect to be reelected.

Not so obvious to me. After the great depression hit, Franklin D. Roosevelt worked to regulate businesses and improve conditions for most Americans. However, the rich business leaders didn't stop working for conditions to favor them. It took many years, but they are persistent. We are now facing similar conditions to those before FDR; although, many things are different, too. Businessmen controlled the government before FDR and they do again. I think most people dislike the current state of the US, especially its economy. Unfortunately, propaganda has confused many and there is no consensus about what really needs to be done. Many cast votes for candidates that make their constituents lives worse, and they are reelected time and again. "Seeing is believing," but understanding is often difficult and sometimes impossible.

IMO Phi understated the malevolent affect cable news has on people. Political messages are cleverly interspersed with the entertainment to get people to do things the rich want. Incredibly, the same is true for movies and other forms of entertainment. It is amazing how a $B propaganda campaign can sway people. Oops. Hurry leads to poor quality. Districts directly elect everyone except the president, who is elected by the Electoral College. In most cases the Congressman take PAC money; thus, they are ethically corrupt. If the Congressman from a district is corrupt, it is hard to imagine others in his party at that level are not corrupt or not wanting to be like the Congressman. Year after year freshman congress members have taken PAC money.

Small voting districts were instrumental in electing Trump. It doesn't seem reasonable they are also free of corruption, unless you are saying they were conned by Trump and won't repeat their mistake. Perhaps there is another explanation. Although, a congressman is elected from each district, and virtually all congressmen and women took PAC money; thus, they are ethically corrupt because they are not doing things for the people, rather they do for their big donors at the people's expense.

I think Phi's idea is more likely than yours, Strange. Wolf-PAC.com is collecting signatures in each state to convene an Article V Convention to amend the constitution and restore free and fair elections. People should participate more in local elections to eliminate undesirables from city government, and work upward to state and federal level. If the people can take control of cities and counties, they can organize locally for state and federal contests.

Hope I didn't spoil the fun.

The Great Filter. I haven't heard official estimates of how quickly the permafrost is likely to dump its carbon into the atmosphere or how much it is likely to raise the global temperature, unless an emergency worldwide effort reduces the threat. However, scientists estimate there is twice as much carbon in the tundra as in the atmosphere; thus, it seems likely all of it in the atmosphere would mean 1200 ppm CO2 or greater effect since some of the permafrost carbon will emit as methane, which is a stronger greenhouse gas than CO2. The 400 ppm will raise global temperature 2C+, 1200+ ppm seems to indicate 6C+, which would be catastrophic IIRC. I hope the folks doing climate models will be able to assuage my concerns and show I am hysterical for no cause. In the mean time, I shall oppose all climate change deniers peacefully, even if they assassinate me.

I hope your statistics do not show a swell of people who are fed up with both parties. Otherwise, our ignorance is the Great Filter.

There is legal corruption and ethical corruption. That law is ethically corrupt. Thus, my opinion stands. Some laws should be opposed.

Perhaps some people believed Trump. I always thought Trump would be worse; however, he as surprised me with how bad he is. That doesn't mean I really liked Hillary, she was the least poisonous of two snakes. Any politician that takes PAC money is IMO corrupt, no mater what party they claim.

It seems to me Washington is a cesspool of corrupt politicians who are colluding against "we the people." With few exceptions, Oprah is a better choice than most already swimming.

Is there any president whom you would have trusted to perform such surgery. This question is out of place in this discussion.

Sorry for the digression. IMO the content of her show business is not as important as electing anyone who does not oppose climate change, screw people out of $1.5T, disassemble regulations, etc. I judge that a philanthropist will be better than a con man, even if she knows nothing about government. I think she would study the issues instead of tweeting "fake news." Last night I saw a report about the melting tundra. Estimates place potential greenhouse gas release from the tundra at twice the amount amount already in the atmosphere. IMO anything that reduces fossil fuels use is ethical. I think Oprah would be far better than Trump in that regard.

Ten said, "I only persist because you inaccurately chose to pretend I was putting words in your mouth." I didn't repeat that; why are you complaining a second time? Ten said, "If you are going to ignore basic questions that challenge your assertions I see no reason for you to make the assertions in the first place." Your opinion, not mine. Ten said, "Participate in the discussion or stop posting in the thread." LMAO, OK, I'll either post or not post.

I am not obligated to answer your question as you think it should be answered. Moreover, read over my replies for my reasons for saying IDK. Your persistence is beginning to annoy me. I'll not answer this line of questioning again.

One of my communication failures is to assume people think the way I do. In other words, I assumed you would take no answer as IDK. My bad.

I didn't answer and you assumed my answer was "no." You should have assumed that I do not know.

I did not answer. You can assume, but don't put words in my mouth. Sooner or later the oligarchs would buy the answer they wanted. They are persistent regardless of how their policies affect the greater world. It is possible a Democratic juror could be bought or blackmailed. They will attempt to use AI to their benefit at the expense of others. I hope we can stave off that attack.