southsamurai

That’s essentially the same thing

That’s actually a thing. It isn’t super common, but there’s a weird feedback that links between the gut and the brain…

Been over a decade since I read the paper on it, but it was something related to serotonin, colinerase, and another neurotransmitter I can’t remember.

The pressure in the gut being relieved makes the brain release a batch of chemicals, even for people that don’t experience the hunger surge. But for people that do, the combination and amounts are different, and set off hunger. Usually before the person is even finished, they’ll have the first sensation of hunger.

Plus, some people interpret the feeling of an empty bowel that was previously putting a good bit of pressure on as hunger, even though they aren’t the same.

Well, you’ve got great points.

And, here in the US, they’re points that require extra scrutiny of any such situation.

That being said, Norway has done this kind of thing with incredible success, and not just remote work either. So the idea itself is most definitely one that merits a real attempt here too

Considering how damn low their recidivism rates are, that’s a hell yes

Dude. It’s Christmas, and even if it wasn’t, mods aren’t a 24/7 presence.

If something gets seen and handled in a day or two, it’s fine for anything that isn’t illegal or dangerous to the instance.

Not that the mods/admins have to agree with your interpretation of whatever it is being misinformation to the kind of standard that needs intervention, but there’s other reasons it could still be up that are entirely unrelated

No, big guy, it would just make a mess.

See, the belly isn’t one big pocket, there’s a bunch of stuff in there. The parts that tell you if you’re hungry or not are way at the top, so putting things in your bottom isn’t going to make you less hungry, no matter how fun it is.

Dad, is that you?

Awww, I hate I didn’t find this in time to answer since it was in a crossword the other day.

Instead! I’m going to pretend to be a nutter for entertainment.

Yo man, that’s just ambidextrous. Which is cool with me, I got no hate for any sexual orientation, you do whatever and whoever you want, it’s okay, that’s how allah made you.

Well, it depends on what you call a hitter.

Any time there’s money offered, the chances of someone taking it are non zero. It’s hoping to be lower on a platform like reddit, or even lemmy, but there are people out there willing to kill for money.

However, that’s different from someone doing it regularly, which is still different from a “professional” or contract killer. The difference is largely in methodology and pricing.

You aren’t going to get someone that’s very skilled at subtle or reliable activity, because they wouldn’t be responding via a public and security weak platform if that was the case.

Unless the platform reports it to a law enforcement agency, it’s not going to be an automatic preventive, but it would indeed be a clear reason to make a report to authorities.

Hiring a killer randomly is pretty much asking to be arrested, or in the case of this question, shoved into a facility and held against your will for as long as is deemed necessary.

It’s also a pretty damn low chance of success. Non zero, but low. Normally, when people want to hire a killer any way other than finding someone they already know and convincing them to do it, they’d have to know someone that knows someone.

You can find paid killers, if not serious professional killers, in most cities with gang/organized crime. The problem is that they aren’t usually going to even talk to an outsider, and they definitely won’t go DMing randos on reddit or whatever.

There’s been reporters that have made contact with that kind of killer and interviewed them. But it isn’t exactly a regular occurrence and there’s no way to properly use any interviews as evidence in most situations. Actually discussing the possibility of taking the job is likely to be admissible, and damning.

Now, it’s kinda funny you asked about going to a bar to look. While you aren’t likely to be successful, and may end up getting hurt rather than killed, organized criminals do tend to have favourite bars, which also tend to be money laundering fronts from what I’ve been told. So, if you knew the right places, you’d be more likely to succeed than asking on a forum. Still not likely, but not impossible either.

As a tangent, I was recently watching a short documentary about a reporter trying to investigate the matter. Even with her contacts and easily verifiable identity, she only found one person in the US willing to talk to her, and that guy was pretty unbelievable. Seemed more like some gang banger playing at being tough. Especially when compared to the South African killer she interviewed. But both it those were still not going to be easy to make contact with. You have to be vetted, or it ain’t happening

Yet another person missing the entire fucking point.

Dude, you don’t get it at all.

You can scream until you’re blue in the face, but it doesn’t contradict massive amounts of data and research done by people that have actual training in human physiology.

You, as one person, are just one data point. And that’s not how science works. It isn’t, and never will be.

IDGAF what you believe, you can believe your farts are magic and grant wishes for all that. But it doesn’t matter when it comes to reproducible data. And it is reproducible. The research on it all has been covered in multiple ways by multiple studies.

So, yay for you! You got fat by stuffing your giant mouth in an attempt to fill the hole in your brain, and lost the weight. Congratulations. It still has nothing to do with the current state of understanding of human metabolism.

Dude, go talk to a bariatric specialist. You don’t know what the fuck you’re talking about.

You ever even look into the advances in bariatric medicine the last decade? Ever help treat a bariatric patient? 99% behaviorial is utter bullshit, and does not match currer best information.

Genetics didn’t likely change, but epigenetics is how our systems respond to conditions in and around us. And that absolutely can and has changed in the last fifty years, and was changing before that.

How our food is process impacts the entire endocrine system, our microbiota in not only the gut, but the entire body. We’ve got massive increases in environmental contamination over the same kind of timeline, which can not only directly effect systemic function, it can change epigenetics in the womb, and the actual genes themselves.

99% behaviorial my hairy ass.

Even that part is influenced by how food is processed, since there’s enough shit in anything you grow, even when you’re growing it yourself to play a factor. Actual processed foods are literally designed to trigger our brains and kick off addictions to the added fats and sugars.

That kind of bullshit is the same kind of brainless thing that leads to people thinking vaccines cause autism. There’s a metric buttload of data pointing to both weight gain and difficulty in weight loss being heavily influenced by external factors, but you’re in here like “nuh-uh, my data set of two fat kids in school says no”

There’s a lot of words for it. Bulked is the one that floated through the gyms in my area. Even body builders do bulk cycles, which is essentially all that power lifters do. So the term is about having increased muscle mass, with no other factors involved.

I’ve seen beefy used plenty, as well as built. Both get used as a generic term for having big muscles, with the exact usage being variable between a more ripped look and the more massive look. But I see beefy used more for the body type you’re asking about than for body builder types where cutting fat for competition or personal preference changes the appearance of the body. Built rarely has a specific connotation in my area when referring to men.

Terms shift though. Buff, jacked and muscular can fit depending on where you are and when you are. For example, muscular was a pretty common description of a generally athletic build that was less focused on size but still had size, like how boxers and wrestlers (as in not “pro”) get as they go up in weight class.

Merriam-Webster, copied in for reference.

adjective

Of or relating to health or the protection of health.

Free from elements, such as filth or pathogens, that endanger health; hygienic.

“sanitary conditions for the preparation of food.”

Of or pertaining to health; designed to secure or preserve health; relating to the preservation or restoration of health; hygienic. See the Note under sanatory.

“sanitary regulations”

See under Commission.

Of, or relating to health.

Clean and free from pathogens; hygienic.

Free from filth and pathogens.

“a sanitary washroom”

You’re right, there is a usage of it to mean “healthy” in general, my bad.

However, I hope you can understand that it isn’t the most common usage, and that the bulk of the definitions and usages are pathogen related. Hence me either forgetting or not having run across its more broad usage.

I’d still use a different word, but I definitely agree with your point under that usage :)

That being said, sometimes something that’s not sanitary (using the general definition now) may still be the better option than something that’s worse.

Which is the case here, imo.

When you’re dealing with something like a soda/cola, you’re very often dealing with a slightly corrosive liquid. When that’s the case, you’re limited in what you can use to ship and store it in. Glass, obviously, is the superior choice in terms of maximum safety for chemical exposure. It is also much more expensive to ship, and has more bulk for storage. It also has a different kind of safety issue; the extra weight and the risk of damage leading to injury rather than just a mess.

The problem is the lack of choice for patrons. We can’t say “give me a glass bottle instead” and get one. It’s out of the bag-in-a-box or nothing these days.

As far as comparisons to other potential chemical exposures, the ones you listed in specific are a personal choice to take in at all. Whereas sodas, people might not be aware of the fact that they’re served from plastics. That doesn’t negate your point, it’s just an interesting distinction. The plastics in food storage is more like second hand smoke than smoking because it isn’t something you can explicitly choose to engage in, and opting out is problematic.

Mind you, I’m not certain that the plastics leeched into a soda are at a high enough level to be worse than the soda itself. They’re distinctly not sanitary, no matter what they’re stored in. Too much sugar, too much acidity, too many colorants and flavorants that are either neutral, or haven’t been excluded completely as possibly unhealthy. Just the caffeine levels in them are problematic, and the problems from the sugar levels will show up in your body years ahead of the plastics. But, again, you’re choosing to drink them, but may not be aware of the plastics to opt out.

Fwiw, my household has phased out plastics entirely for anything that gets heated, and for long term storage. We just don’t buy new containers as they reach end of life, and any food that comes in plastics gets moved to one of our glass or metal containers if the product is going to be sitting around for more than a week or so. Longer if it’s a dried product, since leeching rates for those approaches zero in anything under years. Which is only relevant so you understand that I agree with you that there’s no such thing as a totally food safe plastic.

Not sure if you’re aware, but sanitary just means that there’s no microbial growth that would cause illness.

That’s a separate food from plastics leeching.

You actually can modify your “software”, though there’s limits. Can’t really swap the kernel at all, and the OS is a bitch to alter, but the DE is totally doable. We even have bug fixers, called therapists.

Now, deleting old programs is hard, but there are tricks to reset your clock, assuming the hardware is both functional and running a standard configuration. Some folks are just wired different, so playing with the clock results in blue screens at inopportune moments.

Had a typo in there. It’s eschew

Have you tried gushing?

Not just responding, and having a busy conversation, but just not stopping, even interrupting him.

It wouldn’t be my first choice, I prefer direct honesty, but you already tried telling him you’re working.

You could try even more directly saying that you don’t want to talk casually at work, but that requires not doing so with anyone, or you might as well just tell him you don’t like him and be done with it that way. Which is an option. He is someone you don’t like, but I assume you’re wanting to avoid that because it’s work, so that’s the absolute last option.

The idea is that you’ll go through the brain stem.

Which, it can. It just isn’t a guarantee.

But you gotta realize that movies, even ones that are meant to be mostly realistic, fudge that kind of stuff a lot. There’s insurance reasons even when they don’t care about showing it accurately, and most of the folks that work as the gun safety manager (can’t remember the right term for the job) will raise immortal hell if someone makes it too realistic. Well, the few I’ve talked to anyway.

As you surmised, “Tyler” missed on purpose. The narrator “Jack/Joe” is aiming at Tyler, it’s not meant to kill the body at all. Iirc, Tyler tended to be on that side of the narrator more often than not, so they picked that side. Can’t recall where I ran across that, though. Which is all tangential anyway.

But, putting a gun to your temple is pretty bad too. Just as likely to end up a vegetable. None of the positions used in movies are all that great if you want it to work, and that’s a good thing. It’s at least sometimes intentional, like how they fudge recipes for dangerous things (like they did in fight club) just enough that it won’t work right. They’ll give the big brush strokes to satisfy the chemistry nerds sometimes, but omit important steps.

It’s been ages since I researched suicide success rates (for a book, no bullshit, though I never used that part of my notes), but you never see the ones that are as close to 100% as it gets with firearms, or most OD/poison scenes either.

A lot of times the director and writers just don’t care about accuracy though. They just use tropes that are good on camera. Seriously, you’d be amazed at how much of most movies just hand wave as “good enough” because it’s what people think should be there. Like the “one phone call” thing when someone gets arrested, or not being able to file a missing persons report until however long they need it to be for the plot. I think screen rant did an article about that kind of thing a while back.

When it’s an action movie in particular, John Wick levels of almost realism isn’t the norm. It really is all about making it look good on screen, so don’t expect most of that stuff to hold up to someone that does whatever it is irl. It’s also common in books to do the research and still fudge things because reality gets in the way of telling a story sometimes. Which, again, tangential.

What isn’t tangential is that because people think that movies are realistic, they’ll do things the way it’s seen on screen. You ever get in a fight as a kid and someone was doing those stupid cowboy movie roundhouses? Great way to get knocked the fuck out because you’re wide open and not delivering power where it needs to be. But it looks great on screen.

Guns are no different. People do what they think will work, often because they don’t know better. But, in the internet age, they may think to look it up, but get worried they’ll get found out, or be “put on a list” (which is a trope of its own). So they just follow the on screen directions, and wake up without a face, or maybe don’t wake up and are hooked up instead.

Yo, your lexicon is making my malarkey happy