Most of the times when people get busted for “chatting” to kids online, it’s because the child is actually a law enforcement officer who has gotten the person to admit their intent in a way that isn’t legally questionable.
Even if twitch reported the allegations to law enforcement, it’s unlikely any prosecutor is going to bring up charges on a famous/wealthy person unless they have an open and shut case. Which is really rare outside of sting operations.
No, it won’t. That’s the point of the misconception. You even get to it later then dismiss. We aren’t taking about overall health. We aren’t talking about the 'betes.
I mean, whenever you are talking about health you always consider total outcomes. The articles you are linking are talking about a very specific type of dehydration.
None of those things will dehydrate you more despite people saying differently. Not soda, not milk, even beer under 2% beer will be better. You will be rehydrated, there WILL be a net gain of water in your body. There is no net loss of water no matter how much people say sugar or caffeine will lower the net gain.
“Beverages with more concentrated sugars, such as fruit juices or colas, are not necessarily as hydrating as their lower-sugar cousins. They may spend a little more time in the stomach and empty more slowly compared to plain water, but once these beverages enter the small intestine their high concentration of sugars gets diluted during a physiological process called osmosis. This process in effect “pulls” water from the body into the small intestine to dilute the sugars these beverages contain. And technically, anything inside the intestine is outside your body. Juice and soda are not only less hydrating, but offer extra sugars and calories that won’t fill us up as much as solid foods, explained Majumdar. If the choice is between soda and water for hydration, go with water every time. After all, our kidneys and liver depend on water to get rid of toxins in our bodies”
From your own article…
If you’re dehydrated, you’re lacking salt. There’s a reason why physically demanding companies provide free drink packets to their crews. They don’t want road crews dying by the side of the road because they slammed water and had no salt on a 100 degree day working next to a machine shooting out molten tar and rock. We aren’t pumping people’s blood full of sterile water. Saline bags are .9% salt for a reason.
Again, you are talking about a specific type of dehydration… hyponatremia is exceedingly rare and is usually a sign of an undiagnosed kidney disease. Your nephrons will usually regulate your thirst in conjunction to the available salts in the body.
Dehydration is not just a lack of salt, it’s an imbalance of salt. Meaning that you can just be low on fluid with too much salt available.
https://www.health.harvard.edu/blog/when-replenishing-fluids-does-milk-beat-water-202211142849
"Unsurprisingly, the ad is sponsored by the milk industry. And while I’d never heard this claim before, the studies behind the idea aren’t particularly new or compelling. "
Finally, the main benefit of water is that it’s neutral. The reason why people don’t tell you to slam a glass of milk or soda if you’re dehydrated is because it can upset your stomach. When concentrated amounts of sugars or fats enter the intestine the dilution process can go overboard and cause diarrhea, which can dangerously dehydrate you further.
Hydration is more complicated than what you are alluding too. Simply stating everything but piss and liquor is better than water is just ridiculous and misleading. In specific scenarios other liquids may provide some advantages, but it’s highly reductive to make that claim so broadly. Especially considering it requires you to separate hydration from kidney health, you know the things that control your thirst in the first place.
Wikileaks was never really a beacon of free speech its always been more of a platform where people can leak information about goverments and other powerful individuals or organizations doing bunch of shady or downright evil stuff behind our back. These often offer rare glimpse behind the scenes allowing us to be little less blind when voting during whather elections comes next.
When WikiLeaks first came about it’s original goal was aimed at leaking information about authoritarian governments, primarily China and some countries in the Middle East. It was pretty big news at the time because assange had wrangled together a team of some pretty high profile Journalist and privacy tech people.
However, most of those people were never really involved in the organization, and were mainly utilized as a marketing scheme. The rest slowly left the organization as works in their fields within WikiLeaks stagnated, or left over security and leadership concerns.
Imo Assange has always been a duplicitous attention seeker. However, if that were illegal, pretty much everyone involved in media would be thrown in a cell. I think his biggest failures that should tarnish his public image is his handling of the leaks. Him rushing to release information against the advise of his security experts, information that hadn’t been properly vetted to protect the whistle blowers from prosecution.
Multiple people have had their lives ruined because he didn’t take the time and effort to protect his sources. And not because they didn’t have the ability to, or lacked the proper protocols, but because Julian didn’t care so long as his name got air time.
You know what’s better than water when you need water? Nearly everything that isn’t alcohol or literal piss.
I mean it really depends on the person and their current condition. The article you linked kinda has an abstract definition of hydration that doesn’t take into account things normally associated with dehydration.
If you are working hard outside and are mildly dehydrated I wouldn’t recommend slamming down a sugary soda with caffeine. Excessive sugar is diluted in the intestines which can cause further dehydration, and caffeine is a diuretic.
Normally this wouldn’t really matter, but if you’re already dehydrated it can make the situation worse.
Water is great, it may not be the most effective hydrator in the world as it doesn’t have the electrolytes and sugars that something like Gatorade has. However, it’s the best thing for your overall kidney and liver health which is what really matters. Most Americans already have an excess of salt, fat, and sugar in their diets, so even after working outside and sweating your ass off you are probably better off just having some water.
Yet here we are, talking about it. “There’s no such thing as ‘Bad Press’”, I guess? Are they right?.. maybe. Are they detracting from the plight?.. also, maybe. Am I sure of my opinion of their protests?.. no, not really.
Right, but we are talking about it knowing the consequences of not enacting changes. In the US fox news is watched by something like 40% of active voters. Meaning a significant portion of voters actively distrust news about climate change, another significant portion do not think about it on a day to day basis.
Giving the news network ammunition like this only further entrenches these audiences in anti climate change reactions.
Seems like something I’ll have to read more about.
Would knowing that this particular ngo is funded by an oil heiress that lives in a 33m dollar home affect your opinion?
Sorry for believing a protest should help your cause more than it harms it?
You do know this particular ngo is funded by an oil heiress, right?
Surely we’ll all be okay as long as people are teaching us to be civil and not… harm the cause.
I never claimed that I wanted people to remain “civil”, you can attack that strawman as you wish.
I don’t mind people engaging in violent disobedience or civil disobedience, every MLK needs a Malcom X. However, I just don’t see the benefit in this particular situation. If you are going to do something that could potentially harm public sentiment you should at least be doing something that materially changes things for the positive.
I’m done, a lot of us are. Good luck.
Get off your high horse, were all dealing with the same problem here. Just because someone differs in opinion on how political capital should be spent, it doesn’t mean your perspective has a monopoly on morality or anything.
I say they’re building political capital. They’re creating a fuss.
The people who think of this as a net positive are already supportive of climate change initiatives. So who exactly are they building political capital with?
They’re creating noise, which can then be turned into action.
How? In what situation is there a problem that is more easily solved when people “make a fuss”?
What are you doing?
Not turning potential allies into enemies?
What are you doing?
It was as pointless as everything else, that’s why they did it, it’s screaming into the void to get attention.
It’s not just pointless, it’s potentially damaging to the cause. I don’t mind if someone rubs against the grain of public sentiment for a cause, so long as the way they do it actually accomplishes a goal.
Are there though? I’m old enough to remember this has gone on for decades without anyone doing anything of significance and now we’re at the actual edge of global catastrophe and STILL people are like “hmn, those kids should be recycling.”
And how does cornstarching rocks, or defacing art make any kind of difference? Is there any possible outcome that benefits the cause? It seems like the only thing this accomplishes is drowning out any other news about climate change for 2 to 3 weeks.
Bruh, you and so many people have no idea how many lives are going to be lost in the next century while every milquetoast liberal and conservative in the developed world roll their eyes and get pissed at slight annoyances like… checks notes colored corn starch on rocks you will never visit.
Just because someone disagrees with you on how to spend the very limited amount of political capital accumulated for climate change, does not mean they are less informed on the subject than you.
I don’t give a fuck about Stonehenge, but it’s stupid to believe that others do not. It’s also pretty stupid to ignore concepts like blowback and public sentiment.
They HAVE sprayed BP’s factories and lots and machines, they have sabotaged equipment and chained themselves to machines and have caused material harm to companies like BP, but that doesn’t get any fucking coverage because media doesn’t want to encourage “violent activism” for fear of turning away viewers like YOU who are annoyed by such things.
Lol, they arent afraid of turning away viewers, they are worried about turning away advertisers. They are part of the capital class preserving the fossil fuel industry. Of course they don’t want to spread violent activism. They would much rather all climate activists display protest that they can utilize to turn the public against the cause.
Which begs the question, why are these groups providing the media with ineffective protests that turn public opinion against the cause and garter a ton of negative press in the first place?
I’ve heard of them. I’ve never heard of you.
Not exactly a good thing… One of the problems with making a lot of noise is drowning out the voices of others on the same side.
Political capital is a thing, utilizing it in a protest that doesn’t really accomplish anything but turning public sentiment against your cause is kinda a dumb way to spend it.
If you’ve ever played in the surf and can feel when a wave pulls you towards the ocean before another wave pushes you back towards the beach. It’s like that, but just the undertow part. It’s very noticable.
It is definitely limited by the cultural understanding of linguistical norms. Because the language we utilize in the methodology predates it, the language itself can limit most people’s conceptual understanding of whatever topic you are utilizing the methodology on.
Accurate communication is hard.
would argue that Muslims are, by default, required by their religion to make the hajj. You make it sound as if it’s opt in, but their religion mandates it with some exceptions.
Nah dude, the vast majority of Muslims never go to mecca. It’s not a mandate anyone enforces but yourself. I think only like 9% of Muslims ever actually get to make the trip.
Don’t. I already did a little write up about this a while ago, I work in orthotics and prosthetics.
This device was created by an 3d printer artist and tested by a cognitive science lab. It’s really not a medical device, and wasn’t tested to the same degree that medical devices are subjected too.
When testing devices that are actually made to help the disabled, the criteria isn’t just that the pt can utilize it, but that the utilization the device provides is greater than what the patient would be able to do without it.
None of the actions done by the second thumb are things you wouldn’t be able to do as an amputee in the first place. People are highly adaptive and will figure out ways to utilize their body or what’s left of their amputated limbs.
There are a few reasons this will never be utilized by disabled people. The largest one being that foot controls aren’t ever used in upper limb prosthetics, mainly because they only work when you are sitting, or standing still. If this has been made by a prosthetic lab they would have used myoelectrics, the same tech we’ve had for like 40 years.
Secondly, how is an amputee or disabled person going to don this device by themselves. A medical device that’s meant to give you more independence also requires help to put on?
And lastly, the main benefit of having a thumb in the first place is that it is opposible. The thumb isn’t really useful by itself, it’s meant to work in conjunction with other fingers for manipulation. If you wanted another place to hold or pin something in place you would just stick it in the crease of your elbow.
It’s a neat art project, but pretty limited as far as a prosthetic device. My main criticism is for the cognitive lab that partnered with the artist in the first place. The university is using this as a marketing device for their department, and shouldn’t be claiming it’s a medical device. If they were serious about it they would be partnering with actual orthotist or prosthetist or a biomedical engineering department, not cognitive science.
A person’s sex is science, but their gender is a social construct.
Even sex is not the black and white dichotomy most people make it out to be. The way we define and dictate someone’s sex isn’t reproducible for everyone. The intersex population is larger than what most people assume, and can vary in ways that defy the way we normally evaluate sex. It can range from someone having different chromosomal pairings, to having a varied arrangement of secondary sexual organs.
Anyone saying that someone’s sex is scientifically dependent on “x” is either ignorant, or academically dishonest.
That’s not fair. I’m still kinda convinced Brandon Sanderson has clones, or has made a compact with the devil or something. How can someone write so much and not be in the throws of of some kind of manic breakdown? It’s just not fair to the other fantasy writers.
In the exclusive economic zone, the coastal State shall have the exclusive right to construct and to authorize and regulate the construction, operation and use of:
(a) artificial islands;
(b) installations and structures for the purposes provided for in article 56 and other economic purposes;
© installations and structures which may interfere with the exercise of the rights of the coastal State in the zone.
There no language in the EEZ article that mentions “territorial military outpost”.
According to who?
In the exclusive economic zone, the coastal State shall have the exclusive right to construct and to authorize and regulate the construction, operation and use of:
(a) artificial islands;
(b) installations and structures for the purposes provided for in article 56 and other economic purposes;
© installations and structures which may interfere with the exercise of the rights of the coastal State in the zone.
Can you link what article that falls under?
Nah, there’s pretty clear rules. It’s just that the main power in the region tends to ignore them when it suits them. Again, how is the Philippine government breaking international law?
Eh, it could be a multitude of reasons. It could be that they just had a bad contract. Even if there is a morality clause, how that morality clause is enacted may be dependent on actual charges being filed.
It is possible they had a reasonable concern about the situation, but it wasn’t drastic enough for them to legally terminate the contract. Wanting to save face in this scenario isn’t exactly too hard to imagine considering their demographics.
Or it could be that it was simply cheaper to pay the rest of the contract than it would to arbitrate in court. Or they may have feared themselves being further implicated during a proceeding if someone at twitch enabled or tried to cover it up.
Really, it could be just about anything.