I see. Thanks for clarifying that! I already thought you were joking, but wasn’t so sure. Seems a lot of people didn’t get it as you intended.
You could consider adding a flag like /j, /i or /s (depending on context) to such comments to avoid confusion.

Please provide an explanation, preferrably with sources, if you think my explanation is wrong.

FYI: the packaging is not edible.

Exactly. There are so many who don’t like tofu. Like my mother in-law, who just took a bite of raw tofu and came to the conclusion it’s not for her. Yeah, no shit.
My wife and I then spent some time serving her various recipes, where tofu is one of the main ingredients. And now she likes it.

I like, what my wife says about tofu: it’s like a blank canvas. You have to paint it with spices and various cooking methods to make it beautiful.

Another comparison are Mozzarella cheese or noodles. Bland and boring on their own, but great in combination with sauces and spices.

… Now I wan’t to eat the “scrambled tofu”, my wife sometimes cooks. It’s fucking delicious.

In case you are serious or someone else is serious about this:
Masks, just like underwear, are permeable. If they wouldn’t be, you would suffocate as no air would be able to reach your lungs. (At your rear, that’s just a consequence of low requirements towards the material, which mainly serves as a covering and being able to dry.) So gas molecules are usually not stopped to pass through your underwear or masks.

The main difference between, e.g. FFP2/3, masks and your underwear is the size of particles that are able to pass through. Your underwear will be able to catch some moisture of a juicy fart and probably some shit particles. However, most of the gases and smaller particles can pass through. Filter masks are able to stop most particles down to a certain size. For FFP 2 masks at least 94% of particles down to a size of 0,6 micrometers can be stopped. Particles smaller than that are likely to pass through. FFP 3 masks block at least 99% of particles down to the same size.

The thing with viruses like Covid-19 is, that they are usually expelled from an infected person via the respiratory system, that means, your mouth and nose. There, the virus cells are mostly soluted within the moist air you breathe out. Moist air means: there are very tiny (mainly) water particles which are spread over a certain volume of gas. And they are floating with the currents of the gas. That’s what basically constitutes an aerosol. Particles, tiny and lightweight enough to float with a gas (for a while).
You can see that clearly with spray cans. With breathing air it’s not so good to see with the naked eye.
Those moist particles, loaded with virus cells, are usually large enough to be filtered out by FFP masks. It’s not perfect of course, but it can help a great deal and contribute to prevention measures.

The stinky stuff in farts is afaik a pure gas and not an aerosol. (Did you know that in terms of gas volume, just about 2 % of a single fart contains the smelly chemicals?) Which is why neither masks, nor underwear help so much against stinky farts.

FFP masks are mandatory in jobs where dangerous smaller particles can enter your body. They help against dust, smoke and a lot of aerosols. But they don’t filter out pure gases. That’s what gas masks are for.

In terms of infection spreading, a neat side-effect of masks is that they can slow down the velocity of exhaled air, which helps to reduce how far the aersol spreads around a person. Trying to blow out a candle while wearing a mask isn’t as easy as without a mask, which demonstrates this effect.

Futhermore, there has been a study suggesting that wearing a mask for a while or wearing it during rainy weather can - up to a certain point - further improve the filter capabilities of such face masks, since the moisture accumulates on the surface of the mask (in- and/or outside) and by this forms another protective barrier.

Thanks for coming to my TED talk.

While that would indeed be awesome, that’s not the route they proposed. It’s more about slowing down the perception of time, rather than being able to actually do something peoductive during that.

Philosopher Rebecca Roache, who leads a team of scholars, explains two methods to this madness. The first involves psychotic drugs that distort a person’s sense of time.

With a simple pill or injection, prisoners may believe they’ve been incarcerated for much longer than any natural human life could allow.

The second approach Roach explains is a bit more complex. Option number two involves uploading human minds to computers (da f*ck?), and speeding up the rate at which the brain functions. On her blog, Roach writes: "[…] This would, obviously, be much cheaper for the taxpayer than extending criminals’ lifespans to enable them to serve 1,000 years in real time.”
https://goodmenproject.com/featured-content/new-technology-could-make-inmates-feel-like-theyre-serving-a-1000-year-sentence-in-8-hours-scrol/

Despite thinking, “wow that’s a disgusting way to see and treat humans”, and some obvious moral concerns (like, social isolation for what feels like 1000 years, which will fuck up most people badly), which make this feel like a black mirror episode, the mind-upload issue is technically extremely tricky. Even if we had the technology to “upload” the human mind, it will be a copy, a clone, not you individually. And if we don’t have an option to download the copy back into your brain, it will just be a waste of energy.

More importantly, an intriguing question is raised: After such a download, will this be you? Or just a copy of a copy and thereby another being which just replaces another one.

Another thing I find important to ask here: what’s the point of penalties? These suggestions seem to me like psychological torture rather than measures to “correct” social behaviour. In no way resocialisation seems to matter here. So we just fuck people up by that and unleash them onto society afterwards. Doesn’t sound good to me.

Sorry for not keeping my reply focused on your idea. I had some time to spare and this kept me busy.

And that’s the problem, because everyone is coerced to do that if they want to survive. And those, who own the means of production, the capital, the companies, are those who have the power to exploit those who don’t. And they do.

Mozilla Firefox does.

As it always has been.

We allow it to work though. And we regularly see what a terrible idea that usually is.

Come, visit Germany. Preferrably by train, and observe how good of an idea privatizing such things is.

Similar thing happened to German telecommunication infrastructure (for an industry nation our internet is notoriously bad in compatison to EU neighbours), happened to our public transport infrastructure, especially to our trains, and is currently happening to our hospitals.

Privatizing critical infrastructure has never been a good idea.

Thank you. ❤️

A lot of assumptions you make there. But go on and live in a world where you think Germans are still Nazis if it makes you sleep better. I’m not in the mood of trying to reason with you about that and get into the necessary details. If you’re smart enough, you can take a deep dive into current and recent German society and politics yourself.

And another day of “let’s shove all people of group X into one drawer and judge them”.
We have all this information available through the internet. Can research even the most difficult topics by some mere hits on a keyboard and a click. And yet, there are still so many idiots. This is really mind-boggling.

Was it satisfying? How did it feel? Don’t be shy about details.

I’m… err… asking for a friend.

Yes yes. Germans are still Nazis. Alright. Never gets old that one.

German police are surely not angles and they need an independent control institution like in denmark. But to speak of “state repression” is a wild exaggeration.

With an energy conversion efficiency of usually 75 to 80 % they are really efficient and don’t have as much energy loss as other types of energy storage. It’s a simple, but powerful concept and I find it beautiful. However, there is some concern regarding their impact on the local ecosystem. Not only do they need huge water reservoirs, which are artificially created and therefore might impact nearby rivers and even fish migration, but the way they are sealed with concrete or asphalt also disallows the development of riparian vegetation. From an ecological perspective they are basically dead zones.

Still, considering several alternatives, I think it’s one of the better options. Although it’s not cheap to build those, which is a problem in our current capitalitic society

Seems like you speak out of experience. Sorry for you. It’s sad that so many people forget how to treat each other respectfully.