Nah. Everything I've read about hallucinogens says dose doesn't change effect duration, only intensity. Drugs do affect people differently, so I wouldn't jump straight to saying they're exaggerating.
Also, 12 hours is definitely not short of LSD. I'd say it's the standard duration, with the peak lasting 7 hours. Longer trips can happen, at least to some people, but the default assumption should be about half a day.
definitely not hyperbole. last time i took LSD i dropped at 5pm before going to dinner and ended up at a bread factory 15 miles away at 5am watching them run the big mixers. no idea how i got there just remember walking all night.
salt was always advised to be limited, especially for those with high blood pressure. This hasn't changed, there are just vocal diet ideologues (mostly carnivore/keto) that are trying to post-hoc rationalize otherwise.
Everybody is sodium sensitive, it’s a basic fact that your body retains additional fluids if you increase your sodium intake, just talk to some bodybuilders. Chronic long term exposure to a high sodium diet is a risk factor for all sorts of issues because of this basic fact of biology. Way more so than MSG or even artificial sweeteners. But people focus on the wrong thing.
My understanding is that most people's blood pressure does not increase in response to dietary sodium, which is the sensitivity described in this context.
> Your peers are now way more aware of child abuse, kidnappings, murders, than your parents were
does being more aware of these things mean you necessarily make better decisions overall for you children? Are humans good at translating news they see into accurate risk assessments?
> We should just start shooting down anything big enough to need a transponder that is not using one. Doesn't matter who's in it, doesn't matter what it's for.
indistinguishable from what someone in the current administration would come up with
Unfortunately the current administration just lets the Americans and the Russians tell it what to do and puts up with murderous attacks from both with a shrug of the shoulders.
> Then be angry at factory farming, not eating meat.
When one of the most common responses to pointing out how awful factory farming is "well you can just buy from farms" when the reality is that 99% of consumption comes from factory farms, it's completely reasonable to associate the two
> We can easily feed people as we do now, not have factory farming, but still not have the tens of thousands of acres of grassland to feed a herd for 100% grass grazing.
Going to need a source for that because all the information i've seen shows that there is absolutely not enough land to be able to sustain the current levels of meat consumption.
Going to need a source for that because all the information i've seen shows that there is absolutely not enough land to be able to sustain the current levels of meat consumption.
You're sort of mixing up things here. Yes, there is enough land in some parts of the world (Canada, US), but that's not the point.
I specifically said not full grass feed. That's what people believe and assert there is not enough land for. You can still have some grass feeding, conjoined with grain feed. The animals get to be outside, have space to move around, but 1000 acres instead of 100k acres needed for full grass feeding the same herd.
As factory farms already feed those herds, clearly there's enough grain to feed them.
> As factory farms already feed those herds, clearly there's enough grain to feed them.
1. Feed Conversion Ratio is worse for pasture-raised vs. factory farmed so that's not a given - animals being able to move more, waste more calories that aren't being converted to meat
2. You still haven't provided a source for your claim about land usage
We already throw away 30% of our food, and everywhere I look there's fallow land ripe for crops where I live. Rural Canada.
That said, cattle don't need cropland to graze. They just need land that can grow some grass, and space to move around.
Yes there is a higher calorie count for moving around compared to sitting in a box every day. So? It's fairly widely known that we throw away massive amounts of grain due to lack of market.
No, I won't be providing sources or references. I'm the source and reference. You of course can disagree.
If you don't like this path to end factory farming, you may choose another. However I will fight anyone taking my food away. I will at the same time, help those working towards traditional humane farming methods.
Choose which battle you prefer. One with allies, one with enemies. Decide which will get closer to your current goal, even if it doesn't fully align with mine, and others like me.
Capitalism is how all of our shit works, so it’s lacking in specificity but also a pretty accurate thing to say in many situations.
Why is social media shit? Well, “the platforms are incentivized to demonstrate growth in profit to their investors, so they optimize their system for maximal engagement and retention over time, transferring the same incentive to creators, so many creators who would have made better work before desperately churn out poorly made material about whatever is popular and other, more interesting content is ultimately less common on the platform, with the root cause being the constant need for a growth in surplus in all areas of social production” is a better answer, but “it’s capitalism” is still an alright start.
But this is true: the Tragedy of commons (AKA «keep profits, externalize costs») is a common thing in unregulated capitalism. Regulated capitalism tries to solve it with rules, lot of rules. Socialism tries to solve it with bureaucracy, lot of bureaucracy. Communism (no profits) and monarchy (monarch eats the costs) are somewhat immune to this problem.
I don't know why they decided to use the term "blood letting" but I'm pretty sure some of the benefits being talked about in the response also come from donating blood (which is essentially the same thing)? You calling it "leaching" doesn't seem good faith
Do you genuinely think this is why clever players are banned?
> Someone’s going to win the money regardless, so it’s not like you’re saving money.
What? banning people who have a better edge vs. the house won't save money?
reply