It takes time for earth worms to occupy available ecosystems. It's not like they're natural migrators. In particular, they're slow to cross rivers. Not very good swimmers either. I'm addition to agriculture and construction, anglers also seem to be spreading them.
3 or 4 double shots in the morning. Drip and (especially perc) coffee delivers more caffeine, mostly due to volume. I've knocked myself into jitters with drip on numerous occasions. Never done this with espresso.
You're fine. I've had baristas balk at a quad shot right after serving someone a 16oz. drip without even blinking. There's probably as much if not more caffeine in the 16oz. drip.
I had a customs officer take me aside and interrogate me after a series of long international flights. "If you don't have anything illegal, why are you so jumpy?"
"Because I've been awake for 48 hours straight and I'm getting interrogated by a guy in a uniform determined to pin something on me!?!" Motherfucker.
I maintain that we have a battle of world views going on here. In some ways it's about the myths we believe in. Most environmentalists believe in what I call the Hobbit Paradigm: we live in a beautiful garden, and if we grounded ourselves in relationships with our communities (including nature) we would have a good and sustainable life. Many technocentrists believe in what I call the Star Trek Paradigm: humans are limitlessly ingenious, technological solutions will save us, and Nature is viewed with an anthropocentric utilitarian ethic.
I do not believe in the Star Trek Paradigm. It's hubris. I also don't think it's a very pragmatic paradigm. We live in a world we evolved to live in. Not worrying about this world because we think terraforming other planets and setting up space bases might be a possibility is not comprehending the Good or risk very well, IMHO.
I suppose a third paradigm is cold-blooded, individualist Realpolitik; It's a dog eat dog world, fuck you, I'm just trying to get mine as hard as everyone else is. In this case Space Colonisation is just a beard to disguise a callous and usurious relationship to the beings is this world.
That makes the conflict one of story, of myth, which means no one will have their minds changed by facts. They're belief systems. We need to expose those fundamentally short -sighted or selfish beliefs. We need to tell better stories, and expose the ridiculousness of the other stories.
Oh man, I think it's the 'e' at the end of your name, which in a bunch of Romance languages would make it feminine. If it's any consolation, solid men's English names like 'Lindsay' and 'Ashley' are almost exclusively women's names now for the same reason. (The "-y" or "-ie" marks a cutesy diminutive version, i.e. "bird" to "birdy".)
I don't think it's the similarity to "Imane" (unless this is happening in your home culture) because I have never heard of that name before. However, I have seen "Imran" and I would have assumed that "Imrane" was the feminine version because of that 'e'.
St. Augustine (4th c. Roman) notes in his "Confessions" seeing Bp. Ambrose of Milan reading silently to himself and is impressed. They had so much committed to text, it leaves you wondering? Were all their works composed talking it out out loud? I have whole arguments in my head.
This is an ancient, but relatively unheard of Japanese dueling style called 'tugoware', where the duelists fight left handed, whilst trying to yank a double-handled katana out of each other's hands.
Fuck, AI really doesn't get weapons, does it? Amazing it can put together reasonable looking armour, but just can't figure out a sword.
... we should probably keep it that way. It's going to be stunned when it tries fighting us.
They're naked seeds. I get you.