evasive_chimpanzee

It's like instant pulled pork

I think mint just likes to be constantly moving into a new frontier. I can keep it going in a pot year to year, but it gets super root bound. If I pull the plant out of the pot, and chop it into thirds with a shovel, and repot, I keep getting high harvests.

For better or worse, I think the importance of the resume has gone down a little bit over the past few years. There are so many people blasting resumes to 1000 places with LLM generated cover letters that the only resumes that make it to the people with hiring power are through referrals.

To actually answer your question, though, I think a link to a personal website (or LinkedIn if you use it) is nice to give more space to elaborate on work you've done, especially of there are things that are better explained by photos.

For many positions, especially if you have a "foreign sounding" name, it's good to specify if you are a citizen/permanent resident/etc. Companies may or may not be able to sponsor visas, and many positions, depending on the type of work, can only be done by citizens or permanent residents.

It is good to brag about yourself, but definitely avoid making your resume too wordy or long. Even people with really impressive careers will have a 1 page resume because people reviewing them need to be able to see the highlights immediately.

If you have a list of skills, it might make sense to try and be really explicit about how skilled you are with each thing. It's going to be dependent on the job, but for example, if you were listing JMP and R on there, but you spent years on R and only did a class project once with JMP, the company might want to know that. You could put "R (expert)" and "JMP (familiar)" or something like that.

Obviously, you need a job to eat and pay rent, but if someone hires you specifically to do something you are only slightly competent at, it's really a lose-lose.

America in general doesn't regulate the title "engineer" like some countries do. "Professional engineer" is a legal title, but really the only people who get it are civil and structural engineers who need to sign off on blueprints and take legal responsibility for the design. That and engineers at consulting firms who want fancier sounding titles that make a jury trust them more.

brings back a good degree of manufacturing

The idea that manufacturing ever "left" is propaganda. Union factory jobs have gone down, but the US is producing more than ever. They just want to dangle the carrot of good jobs over people who don't realize those jobs have been automated.

https://www.macrotrends.net/2583/industrial-production-historical-chart

Deer have lept fences and climbed stairs to get to my plants, and they'll eat anything, including stuff that's supposed to be "deer resistant" like tomatoes.

Pipikaula is the Hawaiian equivalent to biltong, and it's really good.

"Meat floss" is a disgusting name in my opinion, but it's the translation of the Asian equivalent of machaca.

That's actually the original way chili would have been made. Vaqueros would have access to salted, dried beef, and dried peppers.

I've made pemmican with peppers in it, and rehydrated while camping. It worked out all right. I ended up adding cornmeal so the fat didn't end up like an oil slick on top. I could basically melt it down and dissolve the cornmeal into it before adding water.

Married women would have a tougher time meeting proof-of-citizenship requirements if they took their husbands' name

Yeah, that all definitely sounds reasonable to me. It's just weird that if that's the point the article was trying to make, they should have supported it a bit.

This article mentions that they are trying to disenfranchise people with the citizenship proof requirements, and it also mentions that they specifically want to disenfranchise women, but it doesn't draw a connection between the two. In order for those to be connected, women would have to have more difficulty in producing that proof than men (which may be the case, but the article doesn't show that).

To actually answer your question, though, at least from the conservative women I've talked to, they are fine with that. The conservative women I know are weak, and they essentially want to give up responsibility in exchange for freedoms. They actually want women to be second class citizens because it means that they don't have to worry about anything (but they do have to just do what they are told).

There are old, conservative women who spent their lives as housewives who feel threatened by working women, so they want to maintain/go back to the status quo of women staying in the home (ignoring the fact that working class women have always worked). On the other hand, there are young, conservative women who do work, who yearn for the pretend vision of white, upper-middle class 1950s, where they get to just stay home and do what they want all day.

TL; DR: They essentially want to be like children, worry-free in exchange for less freedom.

P.s., there are definitely plenty of conservative women too stupid or unwilling to admit to themselves that the conservative position is women as second class citizens, but I wanted to respond with the perspective I've heard from people who seemed to be more honest.

The need for citizen militias was specifically to support regular forces but also oppose them if necessary. The idea was that citizens should always be more powerful than the government. Some people think that modern weaponry means that people could never overpower the military, but we see it all the time.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federalist_No._46

Ooh, that is a good solve