• 2 Posts
  • 499 Comments
Joined 1 year ago
cake
Cake day: June 4th, 2025

help-circle


  • Alcohol on its own does not cause social occasions or reduce loneliness. Plenty of people drink alone, and plenty of people gather socially without drinking.

    That said, while the advice from a health standpoint is that no amount of alcohol is completely safe to drink, humans do risky shit all the time for fun or convenience. More people get hurt in car accidents than develop alcohol-related diseases, but no one is stopping driving. The difference in outcomes between people who have zero drinks per day versus 1-2 drinks per day is much less than the difference between 1-2 and 5+ drinks. So occasional/light drinking is still relatively low-risk. It’s just not actively good for you as previously thought.




  • Queen of the Damned was an abysmal movie with a surpassing solid soundtrack with some of the biggest names in music at the time collaborating.

    Jonathan Davis of Korn wrote half the songs and sang in the movie, but his record contract stated that he couldn’t appear on an album put out by another label, so the solution was to bring in guest artists to sing instead. Chester Bennington from Linkin Park, Wayne Static from Static-X, David Draiman from Disturbed, and Jay Gordon from Orgy. If you were a nuMetal fan back then, this was an all-star lineup.

    Also, honorable mention to Batman & Robin for being absolute dogshit but having one of the Smashing Pumpkins’ best songs on it.


  • OP is referring to the j-curve historically seen in studies about drinking. Because researchers didn’t control for people who stopped drinking after years of abuse or people who couldn’t drink because of other health issues, it looked like having 0 drinks per day led to worse health outcomes than 1-2 drinks per day. Because of that, many health organizations spent decades telling people that 1-2 drinks per day was better for you than 0 drinks per day.

    Someone finally controlled for those variables a few years ago, and the j-curve vanished. Most health organizations now say they’re is no amount of alcohol that is safe to consume.

    So it’s got nothing to do with Gen Z drinking habit specifically, and the science has been corrected since. But a lot of people still internalized and parrot the “1-2 drinks is healthy” thing.



  • How is not stopping at intersections safer?

    A bicycle at a full stop is slower in restoring their speed. This means they are taking longer to clear the intersection than if they’d just yielded. Being in an intersection is always fundamentally more dangerous than not being in an intersection.

    And if there are cars also stopped at the intersection, they’re now waiting longer than if the cyclist had gone through. So a cyclist is holding up traffic and putting themselves at greater risk of someone blowing the stop sign (either from not paying attention or from weird road rage authority trips like OP) for no reason.

    I do agree that the most important thing in driving is being predictable. However, 11 states have yield-at-stop laws on the books. In those states, yielding is the predictable behavior for a bicyclist and it is dangerous for a driver to assume a cyclist will come to a full stop. Everyone operating a vehicle of any kind on a public road needs to be alert, cautious, and aware of local laws.


  • There’s an argument that could be made for Iroquoia or Haudenosaunee. The Iroquois Confederacy was an alliance of five different native tribes who cooperated and jointly made decisions for hundreds of years before European colonists arrived, and that confederacy did serve as a point of reference when the earliest drafts of the Constitution were being written.

    That said, the US is absolutely massive and there are way too many tribes with different languages and cultures. No one word is going to be a good fit for everything.





  • I used to be buddies with a retired NYPD patrolman. One of the most funded and well-trained municipal police forces in the US. With regular range testing, they were expected to hit their targets 40% of the time.

    I’ll say that again: in a controlled environment, against unmoving targets, an NYPD officer can usually miss, and that’s fine. Does anyone think they suddenly get more accurate once adrenalin is pumping and a teenager is running away from them?