Canadian here. I spent most of July 1 in bed! Was not feeling patriotic! Did not watch any fireworks.

Lots of people drink bottled water, soda, beer, or other drinks not immediately connected to the water supply. Furthermore, poisons are unlikely to remain undetected long enough to kill the entire population. While a strong dose of a deadly poison like cyanide can kill in minutes it’s likely to be detected quickly due to how rapidly its effects begin to show up.

A slower-acting, accumulating poison like dimethylmercury could potentially kill more people because its effects don’t show up immediately. On the other hand, the delayed effects of the poison would provide the victims a chance to retaliate against the poisoners.

Either way, it’s a very crude and unfocused attack against a population which is unlikely to achieve any political aim besides wanton destruction and outrage.

Also the real life story of anthropologists visiting an uncontacted tribe via helicopter!

60 was chosen by the Ancient Sumerians specifically because of its divisibility by 2, 3, 4, and 5. Today, 60 is considered a superior highly composite number but that bit of theory wouldn’t have been as important to the Sumerians and Babylonians as the simple ability to divide 60 by many commonly used factors (2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 10, 12, 15) without any remainders or fractions to worry about.

Medieval technology is vastly more complex, broader in scope, etc. compared to the Stone Age stuff on Primitive Technology. It’s actually extremely challenging to go from scratch like he does and then achieve medieval-level ironworking. He can barely make a few little iron pellets which are excessively-hard (too much carbon) and need further processing to become workable. He is a very long way from building a proper medieval smelter capable of producing pig iron or other cast iron products.

Same with any pair activity. Paddling a canoe is no fun if one person doesn’t like water and wants outta there ASAP!

Community gardens still divide the space into individual plots. If I grow a bunch of jalapeño peppers on my plot then it’s not cool if you just come along and harvest them all.

Save up your money and then move to a low CoL country that’s friendly to foreigners.

Yes, of course. Look at Amish communities. Largely self-sufficient and thriving.

People who haven’t tried it greatly underestimate the amount of work though. I’d recommend dipping your toe in with some gardening at home first. Jumping in the deep end will usually lead to failure and disillusionment.

I wouldn’t even go as far as to group people into tolerant vs intolerant binaries. Everyone is intolerant about something. Everyone has boundaries. You wouldn’t just let someone walk into your house and start using your toothbrush. But that’s not very controversial!

One of the biggest issues with tolerance vs intolerance debates is the unequal burden of tolerance. When it comes to housing, this is reflected in the classic NIMBY vs YIMBY debates. Many many people complain about NIMBYs but are actually NIMBYs themselves: they just want someone else to bear the burden. For example, they may be pro-early-release for a sex offender while not wanting that sex offender to live in their neighbourhood.

This applies to all kinds of issues. People may be pro-immigration but are they pro-giving-up-their-job to a (lower paid) immigrant? Probably not.

We as a society were much more tolerant and welcoming towards immigrants before we put all of our social welfare programs in place. In a society with no minimum wage, no social programs, and few/no regulations to limit housing development, there is no cost to immigration because immigrants have to claw their way up from the very bottom. That was how the big cities in Canada and the U.S. were built: by immigrants who choose to come here (fleeing brutal oppression and lack of opportunity) and make their own fortunes.

Prefer the juice that turns you into a bottle of juice that turns people into juice that turns people into juice that turns people into juice that turns people into juice…

People feel no social obligation because they no longer feel connected to anything. Membership in civic institutions and community organizations has fallen off a cliff. Urban planning has turned suburbs from walkable mixed-use communities into car-centric ghost towns. Rampant inflation and cost disease have destroyed affordability for many. Homeowners have become some of the worst ladder-pullers with extreme NIMBYism slowing housing construction to a crawl.

They’re not more adaptable to change. They’re frequently baffled by us. They don’t get why we can have very deep and very specific interests in things, for example.

You gotta read between the lines. OP is close to father, not mother. Mother demands OP cut off all contact with father because he cheated.

It’s clear to me that mom is just trying to drive a wedge between OP and dad in order to hurt him. She doesn’t care how that will affect OP!

Maybe dad started cheating because mom was cold and unavailable? Maybe he fell in love with someone who reciprocated and was available emotionally because his wife wasn’t? He invited this woman to move in, so obviously it wasn’t just a fling.

The original comment was “insects are not meat.” That’s it! That’s the whole claim you’re trying to defend. It’s like saying “chickens are not meat.” So they’re vegetables then?! It’s a ridiculous claim!

There are different senses (or uses) of the word meat. One sense, the narrowest one which butchers use when they talk about separating whole muscle from skin, bones, and other tissues, is the one which you are insisting is the only true definition. Another sense, the broader dietary one, classifies any product or byproduct from an animal as meat, including the whole unprocessed carcass.

Since the original claim was simply the unqualified statement “insects are not meat”, I am claiming the freedom to use the broader dietary sense of the word to show how ridiculous that statement is. You, by your insistence on the narrower sense of the word, are the one being pedantic.

If I buy a whole chicken at the grocery store, I buy it in the meat section. No one would say “you’re buying a whole chicken, therefore you’re not buying meat.”

With lobster you can extract the meat and eat it. You can also boil the empty shell to make a lobster stock as a base for a seafood soup or a pan sauce. Just as with chicken you don’t eat the bones but you can boil them to make stocks for soup or pan sauces. They’re still classified as meat and the products you make from them are considered meat products.

Sure but why does that make crickets “not meat”?

Why not? Shrimps and prawns are meat. Lobsters are meat.

Wet bugs meat, dry bugs not meat?

I think after the younger partner reaches age 30 the rule doesn’t matter anymore.

If a 30 year old decides to get together with an 80 year old then nobody should be shaming either of them. If they’re both mature, consenting adults then we should celebrate their happiness. Of course if one or the other is unable to consent by reason of cognitive disability then that’s a different story altogether (and would be a problem even if their ages were very close).

Very nice, though one thing to note for readers is the pictures are of transverse waves like you’d see in a vibrating string. Sound waves are longitudinal pressure waves which propagate outward in expanding spheres from the source of the noise. The loudness of a sound you hear corresponds to the pressure and frequency it imparts on your eardrum at the point of intersection between that expanding sphere and your ear.

This pressure is directly proportional to the surface area of your eardrum on the surface of that sphere. As you may or may not recall from high school geometry, the surface area of a sphere is 4pi*r^2. If you consider the pressure of a sound wave as being evenly spread out over the surface of that expanding sphere (assuming an ideal gas), then doubling the distance from the sound source will quadruple the surface area of the sphere, thus decreasing the pressure your eardrum experiences by a factor of four! Sounds from very far away rapidly lose pressure (so are quieter) without the aid of constructive interference to boost them.

If you’ve ever heard an echo, you know that sounds can bounce off solid surfaces. Combined with the phenomenon of constructive interference, sound reflections can achieve a great deal of amplification (and attenuation with destructive interference). This is the principle upon which architectural acoustics is based.