The healthiest way to go about it is to just have a conversation with your partner if its a concern at all. For some, one's answer could be a deal breaker, and for others it's not a problem. Communication is key here.

I appreciate this tip, I've had lots of trouble trying to make home made cheese sauce. Even if I felt the flour and milk cooked long enough and I added cheese slowly, I had trouble getting everything to come together. It may be that I still wasnt cooking long enough either because I have a bad habit of scorching the milk, so I would pull it off the burner perhaps too soon. I don't know exact I haven't tried it enough, because I don't like wasting food.

I found Elite: Dangerous incredibly cool. How many chances will we get to explore some version of our solar system? I know the game feels empty, but I found it relaxing for the same reason truck simulator is relaxing, just cruising and enjoying the scenery

In what of part of the English speaking world is this phrase used this way. I've only ever understood "out of pocket" to mean, to use immediately available resources to pay for something.

I suppose we will have to agree to disagree on that one. If you aren't concerned about the information that others collect on you and you don't care to imagine how it could be used against you then I'll stop there

That's true, but I'm also cynical. Policy makers only have to serve up a phantom to instill fear into the general public and then they can drum up support for policies that appear to serve the public interest; for the sake of "protecting" the public.

There's plenty of reasons to be fearful or suspicious: corporations who develop all the new tech we use today have shown already they don't respect our privacy. Our smartphones, computers, and other Internet connected devices are always harvesting data to advertise to us, so it follows that any brain-implanted device could be used to harvest data for similar purposes. Not everyone gives a shit about this one, but there are plenty who would at least like to be paid for the data that is collected from them and used for profit; barring that we should have the right to forbid data collection without consent.

There are, of course, more sinister applications for brain-implanted devices that can interface with the Internet (and if they don't now, they surely will in the future). I think a lot of us immediately think of the science fiction book and movie, "Minority Report" wherein law enforcement has access to the private thoughts of citizens and arrests and convicts those who have contemplated crime but have not yet perpetrated the crime. Any sane person would never allow the police access to one's private thoughts, let alone a corporation.

Elon Musk has said his ultimate goal with Neuralink goes beyond merely restoring function to injured parts of the body; he wants to make it possible to save and load memories and with those two functions we may also be able to delete memories too. Imagine someone hacking your memories, it could fundamentally alter your perception of yourself and your reality. You could become a prisoner in your own brain, subjected to the censorship of a corporation or government.

These are worst case scenarios and I'm not saying we are there yet, maybe not even close to that level of technology, but we should be aware of what kind of control we may be giving away to a company or authority by allowing such implants to be installed. I hope that we will use it as a means of improving people's lives, but I'm very cautiously optimistic as well.

It's really a nasty habit too. It precludes any kind of reasonable, honest discussion. Criticism is too often conflated with insult.

I am not arguing in favor of pacifism. I fully recognize the need to defend against harmful ideologies that infect people's minds with bad ideas. And if those who harbor bad ideas threaten violence then it may be necessary to react in kind. I accept that.

I'm simply saying that it matters what kind of language we use when we talk about it. Calling conservatives, or any opposing side perceived as a violent threat, subhuman creates the misconception that your own side could not ever be in the wrong. In so doing, it is possible that the we too could become infected with the bad idea that "All (insert opposing threat here) must die." I don't ever in my life time want to see anything like the Holocaust happen because people couldn't stop and think that at some point the killing needs to stop, because it's reached a point where we are no longer defending and only killing out of pure and base fear that the threat will rise up again. There is a point where self defense goes too far and gives rise to genocide. That possibility scares the hell out of me.

I would add that dehumanizing rhetoric of any kind can become a gateway drug to justifying atrocity. No matter what side you stand on. It can contribute to the radicalization of any group. Nobody is immune to becoming a monster.