Not just someone that they hardly know, but someone who they hardly know AND has never demonstrated any kind of leadership AND who is actually powerful as hell. I mean, everyone seems to be putting an awful lot of trust in Bran actually being a benevolent ruler when they really don't know the first thing about him. If they're wrong about that, then they've got a BIG problem on their hands. I mean, in addition to his other weird and creepy powers, I think it's at least implied that he can control a dragon. CAN he control a dragon? He says that he's going to "find" Drogon. Doesn't anyone see that as a problem after just having seen a different person use Drogon in order to burn King's Landing to the ground?

I probably wouldn't vote for Bran either. And yet, not ONE single person objects. It's freaking unanimous. NO ONE has any objections to that guy?

Additionally, why the hell does no one have a problem with Bran controlling the 6 Kingdoms AND Sansa controlling an independent North? Does no one else see that as way too much power for the Starks? Not only does the son of Ned Stark get to rule the 6 Kingdoms, but HIS SISTER gets to retain control of an independent North even AFTER control of the 6 Kingdoms goes to a new king. No one else sees that as a problem? I mean, even if everyone did know enough about Bran to know that he'd be a good and benevolent ruler, that's STILL too much power to be giving to House Stark. That's a totally lopsided balance of power between House Stark and House Everyone Else, and not one single person objected to it.

On the topic of the dragons and the scorpions: Honestly, I think that it always should have been this easy for the dragons to take out the scorpions. Dragons are highly maneuverable and it's not as if you can aim those giant scorpions as easily as you can aim a gun. Daenerys SHOULD have been able to take them out. The problem is the PREVIOUS episode, when Rhaegal was taken out like a chump with no logic behind it.

If Rhaegal really needed to die, what would have made more sense is if Drogon and Rhaegal were both in episode 5. Daenerys is already on the verge of burning everyone, but then the soldiers at King's Landing surrender and the bells are rung. If Rhaegal happens to be taken out by a lucky shot then, AFTER both dragons had proven to be good at evading scorpions, that would make more sense. That would establish that taking out the dragons with the scorpions does require a lucky shot, that it's not easy to get a hit. Furthermore, if that happened immediately before the massacre, that would make more sense too. Daenerys seeing her "child" die in that critical moment could be the thing that pushes her just slightly over the edge.

I know that Daenerys has been building up to such a massacre for the entire series, but the way it played out here just felt too abrupt.

Also, I hate Euron Greyjoy and every scene he is in. Even seeing him die isn't enjoyable. He's not like Joffrey or Ramsey, who I enjoyed seeing die. They were good. I LOVED to hate them. Whereas with Euron, I just plain hate him. I don't want to see him die, I just plain don't want to see him at all. What the hell was even the point of that scene? Getting a mortal strike against Jaime was completely pointless since it didn't stop Jaime from finding Cersei (and then Jaime quickly died anyway, from stuff that had nothing to do with his fight with Euron). And if they needed to kill Euron off, they could have easily done that during the scene when Euron's ship got torched. I actually mostly liked this episode, but I hated the Euron/Jaime scene.

It doesn't get to die a partisan death in the senate, if the House doesn't impeach.

It's one thing to say that Trump's actions don't actually warrant impeachment yet. If that's the case then yeah, don't impeach.

But I hate the idea that impeachment is warranted, but that no one's going to do it just because the Republicans will kill it in the Senate. The end result of that line of thinking is that the Republicans don't kill it in the Senate, and the House ultimately ends up not doing their jobs by letting Trump get a free pass.

@PfizersaurusRex: Well, I don't think they didn't have a choice. What exactly do you think would have happened if they didn't pull the episode?

In any case...I disagree with the decision, but it's their choice to make.

Absolutely. But again, we're not talking about ALL insects.

Look at the quote, "More than 40% of insect species are declining". A lot of insect species are highly specialized and that's where a huge portion of the lost biomass is going to come from. What we're not looking at here is an extinction-level event of highly adaptable nuisance species such as freaking mosquitoes and cockroaches. If anything, not being specific about this potentially downplays the level of the problem. That we'll see a massive reduction of insects in general, while seeing a massive upswing in populations of insects that either feed on us, make us sick, or destroy the food that we eat.

I don't disagree with the conclusion that declining insect numbers are a huge concern. HOWEVER, I think that honesty and factual discussion is important when discussing important issues. Saying things like "the world's insects are hurtling down the path to extinction" is at the very least intentionally misleading.

Again, this is absolutely a HUGE problem, but let's be honest and realistic about the details.

I think the bigger point is that even if the meal costs that much, it's still not even an extra $2.

I rarely spend that kind of money when eating out. Closer for me (unless I'm paying for other customers) would be closer to $20 or $30. Maximum sales tax on that (at least in my state) would be about two and a half dollars. 20% tip on that tax is like, 50 cents.

Any way you look at it, the tip on the tax is irrelevant. If I'm eating out at a restaurant and have a $30 tab, I don't think that either I or my server is going to give a damn if the tip goes up or down by 50 cents. If the overall tab is small, the tip on the tax is going to be so small that it only amounts to spare change. And if the tip on the tax is significant, then you've already spent so much goddamn money that the tip on the tax is still insignificant by comparison. If either party (the customer or the waiter) NEEDS the tip to be that precise, then they've got much bigger problems.

It's an extra step when no extra step is necessary.

And hey...I usually shoot for 20% rather than 18% or something like that. Why? Because 20% is still in the ballpark, and figuring it out mentally is a lot easier than mentally figuring out 18% (or at least it is given how I mentally do my calculations).

Bottom line is...I tip. And I tip generously. But I don't think that tipping needs to be an exact science or anything. You CAN pull out a calculator if you think it makes things easier for you. No problem with that. But it's not as if waiters are going to be hating you because you're off by a couple of percentage points.

"OMG, this person only tipped me 16% instead of 17%!" No waiters care that much about that. They're likely dealing with dozens of customers on any given shift, one customer being "off" by one or two percentage points isn't going to matter. I don't think it's a problem to pull out a calculator, I just don't find it necessary. I usually high-ball it a little bit with tips anyway, so if I'm short a percent or two then it's probably still well within "perfectly acceptable range". And if I'm that concerned about wasting an extra 2% or 3% because I didn't use a calculator, then I already spent way too much in the first place and the extra few percentage points aren't really going to cause any extra damage. If I'm cutting it THAT close with my funds, then I just plain don't go to those kinds of establishments at all.

I say this as someone who works in the industry: I think just ballparking it is usually sufficient. People don't need to be exact with it unless they just plain feel better doing so.

Honestly, I don't think i've ever thought that much about it. I'm not so strict about it that I have to pull out a calculator or anything, I just do a ballpark estimate and then kind of go up or down a little bit depending on how I'm feeling.

I'm not sure that 20% of an 8% sales tax really matters much in the long run anyway. I mean, if I'm tipping 20% on a $100 tab, the tip on the tax would still end up being less than $2. Either way, the tip on the tax only comes out to less than $2, which is pretty insignificant if I'm already shooting for about a $20 tip regardless.

I guess it just depends on how I find out what I owe. If I don't know what the bill is, I wait to get presented with a bill and use that to figure my tip. Since the bill includes tax, I guess in those cases I tip on the tax too.

But if it's something like me being a regular at a spot and knowing what I owe beforehand because I am a regular and get the same thing often, I don't even think about the tax or even the tip. I know what I'm going to be tipping, so I really don't even need to look at the bill. In any case, I definitely don't get a bill and then do the extra step of subtracting the tax before figuring the tip. There's just zero reason to be that precise when any tax on the tip is going to be insignificant anyway.

I agree, but isn't it possible to just have a zero tolerance policy towards customers who harass or antagonize other customers?

I realize that MAGA hats could be part of a racist display. Like if a group of customers comes in wearing MAGA hats and then deliberately starts making comments designed to intimidate people sitting at nearby tables. Something like that. But in a situation like that, the actions would be worth throwing the people out. I mean, if customers are running off at the mouth because of the gay couple trying to enjoy dinner, then that's worth kicking them out regardless of what they're wearing.

Again, I understand the desire to try to reduce tensions by not having controversial symbols or clothing present. But I don't think that MAGA hats are quite on the level of white hoods or swastika arm bands yet. If the people wearing MAGA hats are causing a problem, then it's perfectly valid to kick them out because they are causing a problem.