Can you please cite the court case that proves Trump won in 2020? Regardless of how many people believe that the Democrats cheated, asserting that Trump won AND that his alleged victory was proven in court is quite a bold claim. Post proof or gtfo.
I agree that if you take at once a quantity significantly greater than the recommended daily intake, for instance ten grams of potassium, there may exist some people with a combination of health problems, where instead of causing diarrhea such a dose would be absorbed in the blood instantaneously and some kidney disease will prevent the immediate elimination from the blood of that potassium, which would cause hyperkalemia.
On the other hand, if the dose does not exceed the recommended daily intake and it is taken after a meal, then it is pretty certain that it cannot have any bad effects in anyone who is not already dying.
There is absolutely no difference between the potassium contained naturally in food and the potassium added by a supplement. Therefore anyone who would be affected by the recommended daily intake would be equally affected by natural food or by a potassium supplement.
The main reason why potassium supplements are necessary is because potassium is lost very easily from food as a result of the methods used for preparation. Any kind of soaking or washing or boiling where the water is disposed is guaranteed to remove a part of the potassium (and of the magnesium), possibly most of it.
I agree with your sentiment. I tried the app a few years ago and found it offered nothing of value. Most content you can get by supporting an artist is best enjoyed outside the app anyway, like goodies they send in the mail or high-res art that looks better on a bigger screen.
The only use cases I can think of for an app are 1) Socializing with other supporters who support the same artist, and 2) Searching other creators on Patreon and discovering similar artists you could support.
But Patreon's social features were (still are?) terrible, which is why all the creators took their social communities to Discord instead. And ever since the beginning, Patreon has opposed adding search. So their app, to me, is totally worthless. I'm astonished they're still in business.
It wasn't happenstance, though. There is a specific reason as to why humanity's depictions of demons look the same as those aliens, and it's a critical plot point. (Can't say more or I'll spoil one of the best sci-fi books of all time for those who haven't read it).
Edit: it's also highly debatable whether the Overlords are in fact the good guys.
Don’t want to spoil it either, so only can reply that literature and movies are good at masking the real horrors of the world that most of the world has to live in. Can’t remember how well society was in the book though.
Mars is doable. Luna is convenient. Venus is pure acid under ridiculous pressure that melts any probe in minutes. Europa is too far for anything serious. Enceladus is even further away.
It's an interesting concept to be sure, but is it technically feasible to make it reliable enough? The transition from orbital velocity, to atmospheric entry and blimp deployment sounds like it would involve significant stresses, and that's after being in space for half a year to even get there. One small micrometeorite and you have a leaky envelope and the mission is over.
I think there was a proposal for a solar powered winged probe which although less cool, would be probably more likely to succeed.
Some of the earlier Mars rovers used inflatable balloons to cushion the landing. They bounced around for dozens of meters on rocks without popping. Not an expert by any means, but would think it should be possible to inflate a gas bag at a certain altitude, after dumping the thermal shield and using a parachute to slow down.
A powered-flight probe would be interesting in that it could be more easily directed to specific areas and have the ability to stay over a given area. A balloon would likely not be as controllable.
But would be happy with any Venus mission, even a low altitude orbiter would be cool.
For sure, Venus needs exploration. I'd like to see an orbiting station with a 10 year mission to explore the Venusian atmosphere via drones or other methods.
I once spoke to a primary-care doctor about the risks of getting HIV through sex. The doctor told me that the risk of getting HIV the "typical way" (receiving anal sex) is about 1/72. Thus, for every 72 exposures, the recipient would contract HIV one time. This assumes that condoms are not used, and that the transmitter has an untreated HIV infection, which presumably has a high viral load.
Transmission risk goes down by orders of magnitude for other forms of sex, until we get to receiving blowjobs, where the risk is literally nil. There are zero recorded cases of HIV caused by receiving a blowjob.
In other words, HIV is actually kind of hard to get. You have to be very active, and not using protection, in order to get it. Or just be very, very unlucky. And that's with respect to untreated cases, which likely have high viral loads.
This suggests to me that, for practical purposes, undetectable levels are impossible to transmit. Or as the Prep marketing executives would say, "U means U" - undetectable means untransmittable.
Whether or not you're comfortable having sex with someone who is HIV+ but claims to have an undetectable viral load is a separate question entirely.
Sorry to rant a little, but as someone who grew up with HIV in the family, this odd pressure against people who might be hesitant to sleep with someone U=U always feels uncomfortable and manipulative to me. I see it a lot around the internet.
The way I was raised, I'm the only person I trust with my sexual health. I would never trust someones word they're tested recently and have unprotected sex with them. I wouldn't trust someone saying they're on PrEP and have unprotected sex with them either. I can only trust myself. U=U is exactly the same situation.
In a zero trust mindset like that, someone telling me they're U=U only tells me they have HIV. I have HIV+ friends who struggle to take their meds at the right time every day, or forget. And I also know people who have lied about when they last took their STI screening to hookups.
I'm also sure a bunch of people would get angry if you asked a U=U person to show you their latest CD4 count or viral load proof too - so what am I to do, just trust that, unlike everyone else, U=U people are perfectly honest, and never screw up taking their meds?
The response to this is often "anyone COULD have HIV, U=U people are actually safer because they have it locked down", but again to me this is about as trustworthy as "anyone COULD have HIV, but people on PrEP have it locked down". It all relies on the trust the other person is on top of their shit.
I read this entire thread under the assumption that we are talking about long term partners here. Completely disregarding HIV, there are enough other STIs that say unprotected sex is a bad idea, so if we are talking about hookups, the person can tell me whatever they want, condom is mandatory.
Of course long term relationships don't magically shield you against STI, but I'd hope there is enough trust to share test results of any kind that are relevant to this matter if you are having the discussion about going fluid bond. And you probably know the person well enough to know if they are reliable with taking their meds on time.
Unfortunately, consistent self-care isn't easy for many people struggling with mental health issues.
Since you don't immediately feel worse after not taking your pill once, it's very easy to slip up if you aren't the most organized / functioning person.
It’s interesting. I never really thought to ask about the chances with anal given that going on prep wasn’t really even a question.
I knew it wasn’t one exposure and you would get it, but I honestly kinda figured the chances were higher than that.
Regarding oral, I was under the impression that the important caveat there was assuming you had no major sores in your mouth (like, maybe don’t do it after getting dental surgery). Since the reason it’s nil is due to the acids in your saliva and stomach, at least that is what my doctor told me.
Receiving a controlled dose of psilocybin in a supervised medical environment is not the same as tripping balls off shrooms you bought from the guy down the street. I think OP is cautioning vulnerable people against rashly self-administering psychedelics because they think it will solve all their problems. I do not think he believes all research and use of psilocybin should be stopped because of one tragic accident.
Landlords assume the financial responsibility of mortgage payments, property taxes, and maintenance. These are non-trivial costs which the tenant is often not able to pay themselves. It's also far more convenient for transient people to rent a home than to buy.
It's easy to shit on a landlord for collecting rent every month. I've never enjoyed writing that check. But the fact is that many people, likely including yourself, would never be able to acquire housing if you weren't able to rent it from somebody else.
> the fact is that many people, likely including yourself, would never be able to acquire housing if you weren't able to rent it from somebody else.
Mostly because they've made it illegal to build the kind of houses they're renting out.
Landlords, especially small-scale private landlords, enjoy many unearned tax breaks while often routinely flouting the law, on top of fundamentally gaining most of their wealth from laws that unfairly privilege those who were fortunate enough to be born earlier. I don't begrudge anyone an honest day's pay for an honest day's work, but landlords aren't that.
Would you be ok with mandatory draft registration for women if conscription began with only women aged 36 and above? National fertility would be unaffected, since women of that age rarely have children anyways. Then the draft would be gender-balanced and the war hawks would get more bodies for their machine. Everybody wins.
Fertility only happens if women can find a partner. They are not baby making machines. If you have a catastrophic loss of men, you can still experience a demographic disaster.
Not really, a society that sends women to war is more or less a cowardly society dressing it up as equality.
What sort of male sends the female to check on the noises that sound like an intruder in the wee hours of the night? Do they set turns and when it's her turn she's gotta check out the noises? Any gal married or shacked up with a guy like that should kick him out before night is over.
Can you imagine Paul asking Nancy to check out the basement noises in SF?
Also, those war hawks should see duty in the front lines. None of this sitting behind "green zones" directing grunts. Get out there, get in the line of fire. Imagine Washington, Nimitz, Yamamoto, Zhukov, etc., let's just phone it in.
I mean, when things go bump on our farm my wife won’t hesitate to grab the rifle and haze a black bear or coyote. I’ll lay down my life for my wife and kids but I assure you she can be as dangerous as the next guy; in general much more.
This blatant mysogyny is shocking so out in the open. There's nothing "cowardly" about asking a woman to protect her country, or her husband.
Not that I support the idea of drafting civilian populations as soldiers in general: it's mostly a way to get innocent people killed and not much more.
> Not that I support the idea of drafting civilian populations as soldiers in general: it's mostly a way to get innocent people killed and not much more.
Not if you train them before sending them to the front. Check Ukraine, they would have been defeated without the massive influx of conscripts due to the massive Russian influx of poorly trained conscripts.
I think you mean misandry. Perhaps it is. Men bear the burden of conflict. Women bear the aftermath. But that’s how things shake out due to biology. Same as we frown upon sending children to war. Yes, they are easier to indoctrinate and can pull a trigger just as well as adults (see today’s conflict ridden areas of Africa). Yet, we know better than to send “future us-es” into the grinder guaranteeing societal collapse.
No, I do mean misogyny. Women are just as capable and willing as men to fight and defend. With modern weapons especially, there is no real difference between the fighting capacity of a woman and that of a man. And women are people in their own right, not things to be protected to perpetuate society.
Also, women are not children. Children deserve protection because they don't know any better, their minds are not fully equipped to understand what going to war means. Additionally, children make very poor soldiers, as their motor skills and reasoning skills and emotional control are just not developed enough to function as well as an adult, particularly in times of extreme stress such as war.
So again, children require and deserve protection from the rest of society. Women neither require it, nor deserve it, not any more than any other civilian.
If going to war front as an infantryman were a privilege, we'd see the likes of Hollywood actors and actresses volunteer for the front as well as any wealthy folks and any other privileged folks --but they rarely do --this indicates it is not a privilege, but rather something the poor and of lesser means, those whose lives are worth less are sent to the front. It's violence, it's abuse. Sometimes someone has to endure it. I don't see how not sending one is either misogyny or misandry. Sending someone however, is both of the above; however, if we must, then I think it's the duty of men to do the fighting. Women, can of course be in support of the front lines.
Of course it's not a privilege. But if you're saying women aren't good at it, that women need to be protected, that's misogyny. It's like saying women can't receive the death penalty because they are not mentally sound to be held responsible for their actions, which was a real misogynistic argument at one point.
Misandry would be saying men must be sent to war instead of women because they are inferior, or because they deserve a worse life, or something like that.
Misogyny is believing women are less capable than men for certain important things (there are other ways of being misogynistic, but this is one of the most common). Warfare is a very good example.
> it should be straight forward for the president to say that spying on his enemies, that are also the enemies of the state/government, is an official act
This would be challenged in court by the victims of the President's spying, and the court would ultimately decide whether or not the spying constituted an "official act".
If the court gets to decide what is or is not an official act, then they effectively get to control what the president can or can not do. They've already shown that they don't care about precedent, so they'll make those decisions based on their own (or their patrons') momentary convenience. That makes the executive the puppet of the judiciary. Instead of one king we have nine. Happy 4th of July.
The president should be able to vacate the court as an official act as well, saying they're betraying the constitution and stuff like that. Happened at every banana republic out there before.
So now the process is to wait years to see if something a president does is technically an 'official act' or not. Seems like there should have been a better way to solve this.
Yup, presidents will enjoy the "presumption of immunity" for practically any action, and the only chance at consequence is years and years down the line after jumping through massive courtroom hurdles, in which it will almost certainly need to be in front of the supreme Court again, where the court majority will forgive 'their' president or convinct the 'other' president.
Years of zero consequence. Imagine what an egomaniacal, unethical, vengeful, unempathetic, asshole could do with all of that power.
