southsamurai @ southsamurai @sh.itjust.works

Posts

12

Comments

4,196

Joined

2 yr. ago

I'm mostly with you, and I would definitely say this is unpopular on a large scale since so many people will default to that kind of syrup for pancakes (and waffles tbh).

I would, however, point out that what sucks about it isn't the fact of corn syrup being the sweet part; it's how they're flavored that makes them suck. Most of them use artificial flavoring that is completely one note, and overwhelming to the palate.

Plain corn syrup, particularly dark corn syrup, does have its own flavor, and it can be not only acceptable, but preferable, on pancakes that have additional things like berries. Even log cabin (which is the least chemically tasting brand) competes with berries or other fruit. Plain corn syrup, used sparingly, does not and still bring extra sweetness.

You could make syrup from cane sugar, add the same flavorings to it, and the result would suck just as much as corn syrup based brands. Hell, it might suck worse to some palates since the chemical additives aren't masked as much as with corn syrup.

Eh, culture bleeds. It mixes at the edges.

Since lemmy in specific was meant to be reddit with less overt rejection of left wing subject matter, there's so many similarities that they're going to have a lot of overlap in the kinds of people that want to use them.

Then, since lemmy was initially populated by ex reddit users, you run into the foundational culture being essentially the same. Each wave of r/efugees after that causes a fresh mixing, followed by some of those leaving and the rest adapting more towards lemmy culture norms.

The lack of ability to just r/ random words helps weed out low effort shit like woosh and thathappned. So you already have a discernable decrease in empty headed snark. There's still plenty of it, and lemmy has its own population of assholes that snark in a different way.

That's what shallow graves are for

Well, it isn't that punitive measures serve no purpose. They do. But that purpose doesn't decrease the chances of a given crime occurring by other people, nor does it prevent the same people repeating a crime. To the contrary, the way most prisons work, chances are that anyone going on comes out with less options, and more knowledge of crime, so even if they don't repeat the same offenses, they're put in position to do others out of necessity.

But it does seem to make people feel better when someone else gets punished for doing something wrong. Which, in theory, is going to reduce vigilantism and mob justice. In practice? I dunno, I haven't seen enough data to form an opinion about that specific matter.

Generally, the reason it shouldn't be the main goal of a justice system is lack of efficacy. It just doesn't do what people want it to do. So, what's the point of that?

If your goal is to reduce crime, and reduce recidivism, rehabilitation has shown to do a better job. Prisons should be the last resort for non violent crimes, not the first. Even then if prisons hope to do more than isolate repeat offenders, they would need to have more intensive measures to help people change.

I don't know I'd call it an accent really, since it isn't quite the same thing, but I know what you're talking about.

Goats are so fun.

I've never had any myself, which may be why I think of them being fun first, but they are a riot

Banana bread may be the best baked good in human history.

Well, not all pies are desserts for sure, but a tomato pie is, unless you deviate from the usual recipes.

Besides, you didn't say that a dessert has to be a cake.

There's also tomato jams, compote, and you can do a tomato cake mind you, a tomato cake is really more like banana bread, where it's a flavoring more than the star of the show.

Point is that tomatoes can definitely serve in the same role as "fruit", just like some things that are sweeter can be used in savory dishes.

It's about the preparation, not the ingredient. I mean, look at bacon jam. Not a dessert, but it's a savory and sweet spread that's used in the same was as fruit based jams. Onion jam is in the same range (and, as a side note, there's also onion and tomato pie which is more of a savory dish than a dessert, despite being fairly sweet anyway).

From a culinary standpoint, there are few ingredients that are fully excluded from dessert territory by virtue of having strong savory taste. There's also not many excluded from entrees purely because they're sweet. It's all a wonderful spectrum of sweet and savory

Yup. It can exhibit anywhere. In general, you'll see people having a "preference" for specific spots, but it's fairly rare for it to be exclusive to only one.

After head hair, eyebrows tend to be the most common, followed by arms.

Those that grow facial hair would likely be higher in the list except that not everyone grows enough of it to be able to pull it at all. But you'll often see folks dealing with the issue try to pull at the sideburn area even if they don't grow anywhere else, and even if it isn't long enough.

I've heard that it's largely based on ease of reach rather than anything else. Otherwise you'd see it on the lower extremities more often.

But it is an unconscious thing, so that makes sense. If they could consciously choose where to pluck, everyone dealing with trichotillomania would just hit the easier to hide spots first.

Someone needs pats, stat

ALLLLBATROOOSSS!

You never had tomato pie? It would likely change your idea of what too much savoriness is.

({})

I'm not confident that everyone will see the eye of sauron when looking at that

No worries, thank you for responding so quickly :)

Ehhhh, that would only be true if you finagle trauma into a very limited set of behaviors post trauma.

Fish do have an avoidance mechanism where they won't revisit places that they've been startled or injured in

But they also lose that behavior over time as long as the events are reproduced. Which happens in mammals, including humans, too; just not as fast or as easy.

You gotta understand that most fresh water fish operate in smaller ranges, so if they held onto the trauma response too long, then their entire territory becomes locked off. So their brains run a more limited avoidance pattern than what we do. But they do have them

While it would b e possible to dick around with the semantics around what is and isn't "trauma", fish absolutely have fear responses and avoidance of locations after injury or stress. If you don't want to call that trauma, fine, whatever. But it is a mechanism very similar to what mammals, birds, and even reptiles have.

It isn't about intelligence at all. It's about memory and risk aversion.

That's true enough, and that's why I said that if Iran was backed by others and that retaliated in a way that might.

Let's say Iran blames the UK, so they explode something there. Or one of their allies decides to pull fuckery in Germany.

That's what I was talking about.

Edit: the relevant section

might retaliate in a way that triggers something like the nato treaty and you get some combination of countries compelled to do something, which could set off a series of conflicts that might spread.

See the multiple mights and coulds? And that it said something like the nato treaty, not specifically that treaty or only that one.

I'm kinda curious how all those italicized conditional terms and the "like" in there didn't indicate the idea. There certainly wasn't anything anywhere in it saying that Iran our Israel were members of NATO. So it's confusing as hell how you got that as what I was saying

Fwiw, there's more than one kind of shock, and they're handled differently.

Hypovolemic shock is the one that makes the least sense if you don't have a background that includes medical terminology. Hypovolemic just means a low amount of blood. That's when you get stabbed and bleed out, as ine example. But it can also occur via severe dehydration as the volume of blood also decreases then.

You've got obstructive, where something is in the way of your blood circulating properly, usually due to something like excess pressure around the heart, preventing it from doing its job correctly. Think chest injuries where blood pools around the heart preventing it from being able to contract and expand properly as an example.

In all of those cases, you end up with organs not receiving the supplies they need to function, which leads to cell death. As enough cells die, organ function decreases. As that happens, you start seeing a cascade where one failure accelerates the rest. At some point, it becomes too much and the heart and/or brain start dying. At that point, there's pretty much no recovery, particularly with the brain since even the really improbable events that might allow a person to survive all the other organs failing if it was slow enough don't apply to the brain. You can't hook up a brain to a machine that will duplicate its function. So even if you manage to keep the rest of the body "alive", the person is dead.

And that's a good segue into the cardiogenic type of shock. Again, the word itself just means that the problem originates (genic) from the heart itself (cardio). The classic example is a heart attack. A clot or other blockage inside the heart makes the heart less able or unable to pump.

Then you get into distributive, where the vessels throughout the body are in a condition where the volume of blood can't sustain function. That's where allergies come in, as well as sepsis or neurological (usually brain, but can be due to other nerve issues). Basically, the vessels all open up wider, so the volume of blood you have isn't high enough to sustain pressure and therefore proper blood flow and oxygenation.

Tbh, I've always had a pet peeve about the term shock. The etymology of that usage makes sense, but it's confusing without knowing the etymology. It goes back to translation choices. A few hundred years ago, someone was translating from French to English, and chose shock as the closest in meaning.

Which it is a good word for what was being described: the sudden and intense loss of blood alongside other factors after a gunshot. That's the "shock" it came from: a specific sudden, unexpected event.

But not all "shock" is sudden or unexpected in the medical sense, so people don't think of it when the symptoms are otherwise right there and in need of quick action, which is particularly true of sepsis. The way sepsis often ends up lethal is delayed treatment. You catch it early, and there's options. You wait until the person is in a condition that most people will call an ambulance, and probabilities of survival shift.

I mean, the delay in treatment is a factor in shock deaths across the board, but more people recognise how emergent a heart attack or anaphylaxis are, so they'll likely react sooner than with "just" feeling sick.

Worst case, world war three. If enough other countries back Iran, they might retaliate in a way that triggers something like the nato treaty and you get some combination of countries compelled to do something, which could set off a series of conflicts that might spread.

More likely, some skirmishes and back and forth attacks happen, but nobody outside the region becomes involved directly.

Or, Iran could just posture and use it as political leverage to strengthen their position with allies and the various blocs around the world.

Obviously, there's variants of those, and plenty of really unlikely options. But based on how iran has acted in the past and how little anyone is pressuring Israel currently, it doesn't seem like it will escalate unless something else changes

Amen to that first one in particular

Well, ya have to, I stole the old one ;)

Jokes aside, that's a pretty damn nice one too.