Would be interesting to see where these fit into the leading causes of death and the relative proportion of legislation changes for each of the causes.

So the halving turned out to be underwhelming.

I wonder how decentralized bitcoin will remain if the number of miners keeps reducing overtime.

Love it when you get the greatest results from minimum effort and expectations.

You are right, the videos are supposed to be more inspirational and not so much instructional. No blog I'm afraid. I can give you a quick run down.

The bed was built from leylandii wood, which is a hardwood and happened to be locally sourced. The size of the planks is around 25 by 5cm. The wood is untreated but hardy and thick enough to last a good few years. The planks were screwed with 8cm screws. The bed is 110cm wide, making it wide enough to reach from both sides comfortably. It could have been a bit wider but wouldn't have fit in the available space nicely. The paths are 40cm wide simply because the space is tight. I'd have liked to have wider paths as plants tend to overgrow into them.

The bed was filled with half clay from the surrounding beds and half organic compost. If I did again I'd spend the extra time and money disposing of the clay and buying more compost. Actually I might do that next spring as I noticed that this clay becomes rock hard when during hot days, which plants don't appreciate. So my one piece of advice would be invest in the best soil/compost you can afford. As that will give you a good foundation to get the best results in the long term.

Plants wise, I like perennials a lot due to low maintenance. This is what I grew in a somewhat short season in the South West of the UK. You should plant what's best adapted to your growing zone. BUt if you can grow tomatoes so successfully it sounds like you have a warmer and longer growing season that I do, so you should be able to grow most of the following.

Perennials: artichokes, strawberries, chives, lemon balm, mint, blueberries (although they didn't fruit as the soil isn't acid enough), Chilean guava (ugni molinae), asparagus.

Flowers: borage, calendula, nasturtium, sunflowers.

Annuals:peas, green beans, tomatoes, kale, walking stick kale, sweet cabbage, purple sprouting broccoli, shallots (clumping onions), asparagus peas (look these up, you don't find them in the store), carrots, lettuce, radish, courgette, squash, yacon, garlic, parsley, minutina (unusual green, great in salads), basil and a couple of potatoes.

These are what I can think of the tome of my head. As you can tell I like variety. And I also enjoy trying out different plants. When you get into it, it dawns on you the utterly vast biodiversity of edibles available. Within each species there are countless varieties. You can grow something new every spring and never get to grow everything that's available.

Anyway, I hope this is somewhat useful. Let me know if you have any specific questions.

Right, what has changed?

That's the thing, if we never see third party candidates as a viable option, there'll never be a viable third candidate since the system will not allow it and the media will not promote it. They are not even allowed into the debates unless they have 15% of following which is a high bar to reach, if you have no debate exposure. It's a chicken & egg situation that gets exacerbated by disillusioned voters supporting one of the two main parties anyway.

Why did you vote for her?

That's fair enough, you shouldn't have to compromise. I hope a party that's compatible with your values pops up in the future.

In the wider context of things, experience in the public sector doesn't rank as high priority in my list of must haves for a leader of a country. Being intelligent, compassionate, pro-peace and independent from industry and financial influence does. The day to day tasks are ran by civil servants anyway. The commander in chief has to have a clear and incorruptible vision that represents the people wants, that's all.

Thanks. Did I miss much?

I'm not particularly pro homoeopathy but if people want to use it, it should be their choice to do so. If nothing else for the placebo effect.

What I find irrational is voters' priorities. "Homoeopathy, is dangerous -- I rather support the racist or the pro-war candidate which endorsed the killing of millions of innocent civilians in unnecessary wars." I think we need to keep things into perspective.

It's obvious that we hold completely opposite views not just on bio-tech but on how society should be organised as a whole.

So far you seem to support:

1) Bailing banks but not bailing people

2) Executives holding positions with a conflict of interest

3) Privatisation of life by profit driven corporations

4) No accountability for said profit driven corporations

5) Centralization of food production by a handful of biotech corporations

6) No consumer choice when it comes to know what we're buying

May I ask, what would the perfect society look like to you? Because to me it sounds like fascism.

I see what you did there ; )

Dr Jill Stein explains how to abolish student debt.

Europe has always had GM labelling and food didn't get more expensive.

Those studies are 90-110 days long. Is that long term?! How about the revolving door I mentioned before, that doesn't bother you? How about patenting of living organisms? If you care so much about the farmers why make them buy the seed every year?

For the third time in this post (it's quite discouraging to witness intelligent people use obvious fallacious arguments to defend GMOs while at the same time claiming to be on the side of science): the last 2 decades of GMO consumption does not constitute as proof of their safety. For such a self-proclaimed science driven industry, this is a fairly unscientific argument to make.

To prevent hijacking the main topic of this post, this is my last post on this subject. A previous post on GMOs pretty much sums up my stance.

Third parties are in a chicken vs egg situation. Which comes first state or national exposure? I agree that one might help the other, but I'm not so sure if there's a correct order of approach.

I take relief in knowing that you have a certain perspective of the seriousness of other candidates stances. As for the scientific consensus, I don't think it should ever be put on pedestal and worshipped unquestionably. That I think is a recipe for disaster. Jill herself is a medical doctor who believes in the precautionary principle. All she wants is more safety research done on some technologies. Something which is secondary in a capitalist system where profit trumps (and buys) everything else.

Have you heard of the FDA "revolving door"? How can you trust a regulatory agency that is ran by ex-executives of the industry they regulate?

I did grow up on farm so thank you for the credit. But please don't try to confuse cross pollination with gene insertion across different species. The first generates very small changes over a long period of time giving the ecosystem a chance to adapt. The second creates abrupt changes, which organisms may or may not be able to process correctly. Also nature doesn't use antibiotic markers to merge genes.

Can science go too far? Yeah. Maybe. But it hasn't.

I would argue that the atomic bomb is an example of science going too far. However, we are discussing GMOs here not science in general. To have a precautionary approach about new technology is not to be anti-science, like you're trying to paint it, is to be responsible.

Back specifically to GMOs, I have posted before on the subject. This pretty much sums up my stance.

On your first two points, have you heard her explanation of how that would work?

Healthy or not, if you're happy eating GMOs it doesn't mean everyone has to. As for regulation on safety, most studies are industry financed, regulating agencies are known for being ran by ex-biotech industry executives. The point is that there are no long term studies, that's all she's asking for. Having a cautious approach to specific scientific discoveries is not being anti-science, it's being responsible. And there's no need to patronize farmers abilities in order to defend GMOs. I'm sure they're smarter than you give them credit for.

How can you assert the consumption of GMO safety based on the past when there's no labelling to know what is and isn't GMO food? How could patterns have been found?

She actually answers that criticism and many others in her interviews. She says that not being a career politician would work in her favour as she's less likely to be coerced by the political and lobbying systems. She's a medical doctor, it's not as if she lacks the brain power to learn/adapt to whatever circumstances. Something that cannot be said from all candidates in this race.

It'd be interesting to know what you think after watching some interviews. I appreciate you giving it a fair chance.

Can you explain why those policies are "out-there"?

Sounds like an exotic cocktail compared to the two bland brands of beer everyone is drinking.