Drinking can be a big part of socializing in the US, but you’ll be able to get by without it. Neighbors don’t come over uninvited here, and it’s unusual to have the type of friendships where people come by unannounced all the time (at least, after college).

I might try a few things:

• If you haven’t already, find a local mosque to attend; that’s a good way to widen your social circle with American Muslims, who may be able to introduce you to more people, broaden it further, etc. It’ll be folks who are more culturally familiar, but many will likely be a bit more integrated already and have a wider group of American friends as well.

• Hobby based clubs are great, but they do tend to be a little transactional – think about hobbies you want to be doing anyway (so you’re not JUST there to meet people).

• If you have the time, I’d be on the lookout for volunteering and community service type activities – it’s a great way to meet good people, more committed than a hobby group, and much less awkward to socialize in than a workplace.

• Depending where you live, try and strike up conversations a bit more openly / frequently, and be willing to mention that you just moved here and don’t know many folks. At the barbershop, out to breakfast, in a long line, at the coffee shop, etc. Make conversation, a lot of people will be happy to chat and some will invite you to things. Just gotta be ok with lots of chats.

My teens and 20s would be pretty interesting, if you’re into drama, crime and lots of psychedelic sub plots.

My 30s would be… pretty boring, things are a lot stabler.

Yeah probably Ukraine though, he’s a legitimate military target within their operational range and currently was not on putins shit list

Fucking ballsy to just be hanging out 300 yards from the border of a country you’re at war with like, “This lawn ain’t gonna mow itself!”

An explodlin’

Pretty sure this was Ukraine. Hard to keep track, it’s dangerous to work for Putin

That’s Iran-ic

I’ll show myself out

I listed them in another comment in reply to the question… i wasn’t even including the Lisbon protocol, wild.

Yes of course… Russia acknowledged Ukraine’s borders and territorial integrity when:

• Ukraine was admitted to the UN in 1945 with its current borders (which Russia could have vetoed).

• Ukraine’s sovereign status and territorial integrity were guaranteed in the Belovezha Accords in 1991, which recognized the dissolution of the USSR and the borders and sovereignty of the former member states.

• Ukraine agreed to transfer control of its 4,700 nuclear weapons to the Russian Federation in exchange for guarantees by the US, UK, and Russian Federation that they would not threaten to use (or use) military force against Ukraine… in the Budapest Memorandum in 1996.

• Russia specifically recognized Ukraine’s sovereignty in Crimea when Ukraine agreed to lease it military bases there (and split the Black Sea fleet, stationed in Crimea, 50/50 in 1997) in the Partition Treaty.

• The two countries agreed not to declare war on one another, to treat each other’s territory as inviolable and to prohibit the use of military force to resolve any future territorial disputes in the same year’s Treaty of Friendship.

• Russia agreed to “final borders” in January 2003 (which include Crimea, Kherson, etc)

• As you know, Russia invaded Ukraine in 2014; they signed a ceasefire in 2015 once again confirming Ukraine’s territorial integrity, but this was almost immediately violated, so I’m not sure I’d even count it.

Hope it helps. The three that were top of mind for me were 1991, 1996, and 2003.

I mean… I can’t see any issue with NATO not stopping Ukraine from invading its own territory… the territory the UN recognizes as part of Ukraine… and which Russia signed three separate treaties promising to respect as part of Ukraine.

Yeah, prickly pears are tuna fruit, from the tuna cactus

Ditto

Yeah, I did a bit of poking around, check this out. Till the tuna canneries started showing up in the early 1900s in California, “tuna” was just as likely to prefix “cactus” as “fish”.

Mystery solved I think

There is, yes … that’s the main Spanish name for prickly pear.

Up until around 1907, your odds of encountering the fruit by the name “tuna” were about the same as the fish, when the first commercial canneries started to pop up in California… hence, a habit of clarifying between the two that stuck, even though most folks outside of the southwest had never heard of a tuna cactus.

I order a tuna salad sandwich or a tuna sandwich, but I grew up hearing tuna fish… specifically in reference to the stuff that came in a can.

Both were equally common years ago but over time, “tuna” sans fish has won out… likely because fresh, non canned tuna is very common.

I read an article a while ago that theorized the reason for Americans calling it “tuna fish” was that it rose to prominence as a canned staple good in the 1940s, and many Americans who didn’t live on the coasts had never heard of tuna before. Its light meat, when canned and cooked, was very mild and chicken-y compared with the heavily salted, oily canned fish folks were familiar with, hence both “chicken of the sea” and the precaution of labeling the can with not only tuna, but “fish”.

I think an alternate explanation is probably more likely… the 1919 Oxford English Dictionary describes “Tuna” as an alternative spelling of “tunny”, the old name for the fish (still used in a culinary sense in Britain) … not coincidentally:

• Californians would also have been familiar with the other tuna… tuna fruit, the prickly pear.

• Possessed of both a fruit and a fish of the same name, distinguishing one from the other when canning fish seems reasonable

• The largest canneries of tuna (e.g., the one that ultimately became Chicken of the Sea) were all based in California.

I mean look, it’s cool that they’re doing this and all, and the idea or a trans Atlantic flight in 3 hours is neat for sure … but air travel is already really damn fast, could we focus on making it less shit in other ways?

• Can we get the carbon footprint down so it doesn’t contribute so much to the end of the world?

• Can we cut fuel costs significantly so it doesn’t have to be so miserably expensive?

Because the only source for that (at present) is the Wagner Group, who have a (dead) dog in the fight and are not bastions of truth. NYT will be trying to confirm it before saying so.

His officers thought his odds weren’t good and wouldn’t back him, is the word on the street. Top guy gets killed, not levels 2/3

Hate to say it but geopolitical, America’s got a brighter future than just about anyone else in the world right now. Something to say for lots of reserves of your own resources, your own continent containing only healthy, friendly trade allies and demography that isn’t in the midst of collapse.

Knowing America we’ll burn the place down to spite ourselves, but hey

It may have taken 64 years but at least we got The Death of Stalin out of that one guy’s enthusiastic genociding, it isn’t all bad