🔥 Popular | Latest

my-discourse-blog: ryrythescienceguy: Children being naturally exposed to a variety of germs from a very young age (from dirt, pets, playplaces, sandboxes, other kids, etc) is actually really good for the immune system and can even prevent the development of allergies. The reason food allergies are so common these days is precisely because parents are avoiding exposing their kids to possible trigger foods and not letting them get dirty (also the overuse of antibacterial soaps/hand santitizers and antibiotics!). Source: grew up on a farm, played in the dirt and with germy animals and germy siblings/cousins/friends all the time, and very rarely took antibiotics… today I’m 24, have zero allergies, and a great immune system (even my little sister is the same, and she wasn’t vaccinated until she was a teenager). This is also why oldest siblings and only children tend to have more allergies in my anecdotal experience; the parents often get overprepared and don’t let their kid get exposed to ANY germs/allergens—by the time other children come along the parents are jaded enough to not care about it as much, and thus the kids afterwards are exposed to more germs from birth! If this sounds weird and backwards, it’s because for a long time doctors used to teach the exact opposite. Keep your child clean and away from germs and potenial allergy triggers. Until they saw the long-term side effects of this and are now starting to tell new parents how to do it better. NOTE: I AM EXTREMELY PRO-VAX! DO NOT MISTAKE THIS COMMENT AS ANTI-VAX. VACCINATE YOUR FUCKING CHILDREN AND EXPOSE THEM TO GERMS IN A CONTROLLED WAY. THE HUMAN IMMUNE SYSTEM IS CAPABLE OF MANY THINGS BUT IT’S NOT A MIRACLE WORKER AND IT NEEDS HELP!!! Can confirm this is true. I’ve studied food science for 5 years and have 3 qualifications in food safety. : my-discourse-blog: ryrythescienceguy: Children being naturally exposed to a variety of germs from a very young age (from dirt, pets, playplaces, sandboxes, other kids, etc) is actually really good for the immune system and can even prevent the development of allergies. The reason food allergies are so common these days is precisely because parents are avoiding exposing their kids to possible trigger foods and not letting them get dirty (also the overuse of antibacterial soaps/hand santitizers and antibiotics!). Source: grew up on a farm, played in the dirt and with germy animals and germy siblings/cousins/friends all the time, and very rarely took antibiotics… today I’m 24, have zero allergies, and a great immune system (even my little sister is the same, and she wasn’t vaccinated until she was a teenager). This is also why oldest siblings and only children tend to have more allergies in my anecdotal experience; the parents often get overprepared and don’t let their kid get exposed to ANY germs/allergens—by the time other children come along the parents are jaded enough to not care about it as much, and thus the kids afterwards are exposed to more germs from birth! If this sounds weird and backwards, it’s because for a long time doctors used to teach the exact opposite. Keep your child clean and away from germs and potenial allergy triggers. Until they saw the long-term side effects of this and are now starting to tell new parents how to do it better. NOTE: I AM EXTREMELY PRO-VAX! DO NOT MISTAKE THIS COMMENT AS ANTI-VAX. VACCINATE YOUR FUCKING CHILDREN AND EXPOSE THEM TO GERMS IN A CONTROLLED WAY. THE HUMAN IMMUNE SYSTEM IS CAPABLE OF MANY THINGS BUT IT’S NOT A MIRACLE WORKER AND IT NEEDS HELP!!! Can confirm this is true. I’ve studied food science for 5 years and have 3 qualifications in food safety.
Save
Save
Save
Save
Save
Save
Save
ruffboijuliaburnsides: ayalaatreides: professor-maple-mod: phoenix-phoenix: stuckinremission: “Sweet dreams are made of this. Who am I to disagree?“ Holy shit this fucking super power. The avengers did Quicksilver WRONG. Holy shit The brilliant thing about this isn’t just the CGI, it’s the clever little touches of humor– mussing the boy’s hair, saving the goldfish, drinking the soda can, the moonwalk, lining up the dart with the dartboard. I notice new details every time I see this clip. You can watch this scene with zero context and still fully enjoy it. You don’t need to know who he is or who he’s saving or why. There’s a guy who runs real fast and he’s saving people from an explosion, and he’s having a blast with it, and that’s all you need to know. It’s entertaining and fully comprehensible even if you know nothing about the movie. That’s damn good filmmaking. I have absolutely ZERO interest in ever watching this movie, and I never have had any. But ever since this clip first made it onto tumblr, I have watched it EVERY SINGLE TIME it’s come around, because it is just absolutely fantastic work not only cinematographically but also to show characterization. He’s gonna save all these people, but he’s also gonna have a little fun. He’s a good person but a mischievous one, who probably has a lot of opinions and who doesn’t take things too seriously. Plus the music choice is just ON POINT. : ruffboijuliaburnsides: ayalaatreides: professor-maple-mod: phoenix-phoenix: stuckinremission: “Sweet dreams are made of this. Who am I to disagree?“ Holy shit this fucking super power. The avengers did Quicksilver WRONG. Holy shit The brilliant thing about this isn’t just the CGI, it’s the clever little touches of humor– mussing the boy’s hair, saving the goldfish, drinking the soda can, the moonwalk, lining up the dart with the dartboard. I notice new details every time I see this clip. You can watch this scene with zero context and still fully enjoy it. You don’t need to know who he is or who he’s saving or why. There’s a guy who runs real fast and he’s saving people from an explosion, and he’s having a blast with it, and that’s all you need to know. It’s entertaining and fully comprehensible even if you know nothing about the movie. That’s damn good filmmaking. I have absolutely ZERO interest in ever watching this movie, and I never have had any. But ever since this clip first made it onto tumblr, I have watched it EVERY SINGLE TIME it’s come around, because it is just absolutely fantastic work not only cinematographically but also to show characterization. He’s gonna save all these people, but he’s also gonna have a little fun. He’s a good person but a mischievous one, who probably has a lot of opinions and who doesn’t take things too seriously. Plus the music choice is just ON POINT.
Save
bogleech: cazort: marvelousgameofdisneythrones: pangur-and-grim: my favourite part of the Evolutionary Biology courses I took at the University of Toronto was learning that several bird species have 3+ sexes? the ruff bird is a great example - each male variant has a different (and successful!) reproductive strategy, and a different chromosomal sequence. unlike the ruff bird, human sex falls into a bimodal distribution - this means there are two strong peaks (”typical” male and female morphs), with a whole lot in between. evolution is nice way of saying “statistics played out longterm among living organisms”, and evolutionarily successful traits….aren’t something to hold up as natural or moral, or representative of an advanced state. it’s literally just fuck tactics that make your group size increase. (though fucking isn’t always the best route, as asexual reproduction is massively advantageous as a short-term strategy, and certain species dominate the landscape by switching between sexual/asexual depending on environmental conditions) besides all that, the strength of humankind has always been our ability to work together communally, and that’s straight science. so even if you went down the extremely problematic path of valuing fellow humans based on their potential evolutionary contribution (coughs, eugenics, coughs), there would still be zero scientific basis behind discriminating against trans, non-binary and intersex people.  tl;dr here’s a challenge to all the bigots out there: please stop using “science” as a defence when the actual science is (overwhelmingly) against you. Science: pissing off bigots of all kinds since its inception. I find White-throated sparrows fascinating. They have two color morphs, the bright one: And the drab one: The two morphs have very different behavior. The bright ones are more aggressive, setting up territories and defending them, being more aggressive about defending against predators. They sing more often. The dull ones are quieter and less aggressive. They are more attentive to the nest, and better at feeding nestlings. The morphs tend to make a good pairing for raising children because they specialize in different roles. The dull-colored birds, being more camouflaged, are safer when sitting on the nest, and are better able to hide. The bright-colored birds, being more visible, are better able to intimidate predators and rivals. Interestingly though, both color morphs occur in both female and male birds. And birds tend to pair up with both opposite sex and opposite color morph birds. The dimorphism and different roles that, in most birds, are strongly associated with biological sex, in this species has evolved to be abstracted and separated from biological sex. Some people have described this system as the birds having “four sexes”. It’s been proposed that some life may have only first split into multiple sexes in order to confuse or slow down parasites so maybe some folks get offended cause deep down they just think roundworms will get them : bogleech: cazort: marvelousgameofdisneythrones: pangur-and-grim: my favourite part of the Evolutionary Biology courses I took at the University of Toronto was learning that several bird species have 3+ sexes? the ruff bird is a great example - each male variant has a different (and successful!) reproductive strategy, and a different chromosomal sequence. unlike the ruff bird, human sex falls into a bimodal distribution - this means there are two strong peaks (”typical” male and female morphs), with a whole lot in between. evolution is nice way of saying “statistics played out longterm among living organisms”, and evolutionarily successful traits….aren’t something to hold up as natural or moral, or representative of an advanced state. it’s literally just fuck tactics that make your group size increase. (though fucking isn’t always the best route, as asexual reproduction is massively advantageous as a short-term strategy, and certain species dominate the landscape by switching between sexual/asexual depending on environmental conditions) besides all that, the strength of humankind has always been our ability to work together communally, and that’s straight science. so even if you went down the extremely problematic path of valuing fellow humans based on their potential evolutionary contribution (coughs, eugenics, coughs), there would still be zero scientific basis behind discriminating against trans, non-binary and intersex people.  tl;dr here’s a challenge to all the bigots out there: please stop using “science” as a defence when the actual science is (overwhelmingly) against you. Science: pissing off bigots of all kinds since its inception. I find White-throated sparrows fascinating. They have two color morphs, the bright one: And the drab one: The two morphs have very different behavior. The bright ones are more aggressive, setting up territories and defending them, being more aggressive about defending against predators. They sing more often. The dull ones are quieter and less aggressive. They are more attentive to the nest, and better at feeding nestlings. The morphs tend to make a good pairing for raising children because they specialize in different roles. The dull-colored birds, being more camouflaged, are safer when sitting on the nest, and are better able to hide. The bright-colored birds, being more visible, are better able to intimidate predators and rivals. Interestingly though, both color morphs occur in both female and male birds. And birds tend to pair up with both opposite sex and opposite color morph birds. The dimorphism and different roles that, in most birds, are strongly associated with biological sex, in this species has evolved to be abstracted and separated from biological sex. Some people have described this system as the birds having “four sexes”. It’s been proposed that some life may have only first split into multiple sexes in order to confuse or slow down parasites so maybe some folks get offended cause deep down they just think roundworms will get them
Save
blackwitchmagicwoman: auroraluciferi: askmace: scholarlyapproach: DON’T LET THIS HAPPEN TO CEREAL!!! Listen in the past the poor have had to improvise cheap food the rich never wanted as a means to survive. And over the many years of innovation made the food taste good until eventually the rich where like: “Oh hay you actually like that garbage? Why on earth would you like it?” Then they try it, love it, start buying it, and then drive the price up so much it becomes a luxury good. They do this and its devastating, the food typically never becomes affordable again. It don’t matter how cheap the foo dis to produce, it doesn’t matter if there is almost no meat on the bone or its super difficult to eat and messy. Once the poor discover how to make some bit of cheap food taste good, the rich take it away via driving the price of it up. THEY DID THIS TO RIBS. Ribs were garage meat. Just look at them, there is hardly any meat on the bone, you have to eat them by hand usually, and they are messy. They where an undesirable cheap source of junk meat. But the poor being the poor made them taste good. (Because they don’t have much to choose from.) The rich discovered the meals the poor made with them and decided they liked ribs too. People discovered they could sell a few ribs to rich people and make way more money then selling lots of ribs to poor people and the price was driven up. DON’T LET THIS HAPPEN TO CEREAL!!! They did the same to brisket.  You used to be able to get brisket for less than a dollar a pound, which meant you could get a twenty pound brisket fairly cheaply.  And then you smoked it, sliced it, and had meat for weeks if not a full month.  And it was tasty.  I grew up eating brisket at least once a month because my family could afford it. It was a cheap meat because no rich person looks at the dangly part of the neck of a cow and goes ‘ooh, that looks tasty!’. But then Food Network started showcasing things like barbecued brisket.  Rich people started showing up at places that weren’t just Rib Crib to get their barbeque.  And the price of brisket went up.  A lot. I regularly see it for over five dollars a pound in stores now.  And while yeah, that might not seem like a lot when you’re talking only a pound or two of meat, brisket is normally sold in ten to twenty pound sizes.  It’s become completely unaffordable to the people that made it delicious. Sushi used to be really cheap, too, until it became ‘trendy’.  Guess why you’re now paying twelve dollars for your order of California rolls?  Because rich people discovered something that poor people had been eating for ages. Noticed the prices of fajita meat, chicken thighs, or ham hocks has gone up recently?  You guessed it.  Rich people are taking our food and now we’re scrambling to afford the things that we grew up eating. Lobster is a perfect example of this phenomenon. For hundreds of years, lobster was regarded as a sort of insect larvae from the depth of the sea. It had zero appeal as a “luxury food” until people living in NY and Boston developed a taste for it. Before the 19th century, it was considered a “poverty food” or used as fertilizer and bait - some household servants specified in employment agreements that they would not eat lobster more than twice a week.It was also commonly served at prisons, which tells you something about prison food. Only by cleverly marketing lobster as an indulgence for the privileged made it cost so much. It became a vehicle for enormous profit spawning a multi-billion dollar global industry in the process. This mythical affection for lobster flesh - not its practical value in terms of taste, nutrition, or any other reasonable consideration - drives its value. LMAO. Wait. : blackwitchmagicwoman: auroraluciferi: askmace: scholarlyapproach: DON’T LET THIS HAPPEN TO CEREAL!!! Listen in the past the poor have had to improvise cheap food the rich never wanted as a means to survive. And over the many years of innovation made the food taste good until eventually the rich where like: “Oh hay you actually like that garbage? Why on earth would you like it?” Then they try it, love it, start buying it, and then drive the price up so much it becomes a luxury good. They do this and its devastating, the food typically never becomes affordable again. It don’t matter how cheap the foo dis to produce, it doesn’t matter if there is almost no meat on the bone or its super difficult to eat and messy. Once the poor discover how to make some bit of cheap food taste good, the rich take it away via driving the price of it up. THEY DID THIS TO RIBS. Ribs were garage meat. Just look at them, there is hardly any meat on the bone, you have to eat them by hand usually, and they are messy. They where an undesirable cheap source of junk meat. But the poor being the poor made them taste good. (Because they don’t have much to choose from.) The rich discovered the meals the poor made with them and decided they liked ribs too. People discovered they could sell a few ribs to rich people and make way more money then selling lots of ribs to poor people and the price was driven up. DON’T LET THIS HAPPEN TO CEREAL!!! They did the same to brisket.  You used to be able to get brisket for less than a dollar a pound, which meant you could get a twenty pound brisket fairly cheaply.  And then you smoked it, sliced it, and had meat for weeks if not a full month.  And it was tasty.  I grew up eating brisket at least once a month because my family could afford it. It was a cheap meat because no rich person looks at the dangly part of the neck of a cow and goes ‘ooh, that looks tasty!’. But then Food Network started showcasing things like barbecued brisket.  Rich people started showing up at places that weren’t just Rib Crib to get their barbeque.  And the price of brisket went up.  A lot. I regularly see it for over five dollars a pound in stores now.  And while yeah, that might not seem like a lot when you’re talking only a pound or two of meat, brisket is normally sold in ten to twenty pound sizes.  It’s become completely unaffordable to the people that made it delicious. Sushi used to be really cheap, too, until it became ‘trendy’.  Guess why you’re now paying twelve dollars for your order of California rolls?  Because rich people discovered something that poor people had been eating for ages. Noticed the prices of fajita meat, chicken thighs, or ham hocks has gone up recently?  You guessed it.  Rich people are taking our food and now we’re scrambling to afford the things that we grew up eating. Lobster is a perfect example of this phenomenon. For hundreds of years, lobster was regarded as a sort of insect larvae from the depth of the sea. It had zero appeal as a “luxury food” until people living in NY and Boston developed a taste for it. Before the 19th century, it was considered a “poverty food” or used as fertilizer and bait - some household servants specified in employment agreements that they would not eat lobster more than twice a week.It was also commonly served at prisons, which tells you something about prison food. Only by cleverly marketing lobster as an indulgence for the privileged made it cost so much. It became a vehicle for enormous profit spawning a multi-billion dollar global industry in the process. This mythical affection for lobster flesh - not its practical value in terms of taste, nutrition, or any other reasonable consideration - drives its value. LMAO. Wait.

blackwitchmagicwoman: auroraluciferi: askmace: scholarlyapproach: DON’T LET THIS HAPPEN TO CEREAL!!! Listen in the past the poor have...

Save
not-a-space-alien: scotchtapeofficial: bjorkington: r/zerocarb is my new favorite subreddit new trend: scurvy This is why you always talk to a doctor or a real actual science-based dietician before you try any sort of radical diet. Because if any of these people had been like “doc, what if I cut out carbs from my diet completely?” Any good counselor would have been like “hey ABSOLUTELY do not do that” : r/zerocarb А:/ u/NewLifeNow13-43d Hair loss I've been losing a noticeably amount of hair the past few weeks. Is it adaption? l've been doing zero carb for months now. 會 21 26 u Share r/zerocarb u/xMidianx.9d Worsening eyesight on ZC? Was 7 months strict keto, after that switched to ZC. Now being 3.5 months ZC and noticed for the last 2 weeks my distance vision getting worse, blurry Anyone experienced this in regards to ZC? No noticeable vision changes when I was on keto. I'm 31 years old 8 Share r/zerocarb u/my_user_account 24d . carnivore since 2017-02 Toothpaste: yes or no? My ZC diet is extremely clean. No spices whatsoever. Salt is down to a smidgen per meal I stopped using toothpaste about 6 weeks ago. I still brush, but water only. The results have been: no problems. Anyone else tried this? 1 19 17 Share r/zerocarb u/reddiru 39d My Gums Are Bleedi Ever since beginning zero carb I have had terribly sensitive gums. One stroke of the tooth brush is all it takes to make them bleed. I have been ZC for 3 months, and I have been eating liver, heart, ground beef, and marrow. Everything that I eat is raw. I don't mean to bring up the vitamin c discussion again, but the only thing that I found as a reason for bleeding gums is "vitamin c deficiency".. Any thoughts? 28 u Share not-a-space-alien: scotchtapeofficial: bjorkington: r/zerocarb is my new favorite subreddit new trend: scurvy This is why you always talk to a doctor or a real actual science-based dietician before you try any sort of radical diet. Because if any of these people had been like “doc, what if I cut out carbs from my diet completely?” Any good counselor would have been like “hey ABSOLUTELY do not do that”

not-a-space-alien: scotchtapeofficial: bjorkington: r/zerocarb is my new favorite subreddit new trend: scurvy This is why you always...

Save
scifiseries: Numan Versus Numan (Alternative 80s Book 1) Two tribute bands. One ultimate prize. Zero room for failure.For years, The Romford Bombers have dominated the Gary Numan tribute band circuit. And then, last year, The Storm Troopers came out of nowhere and stole their crown.The Bombers’ 56-year-old lead singer - named ‘Five’ - will do whatever it takes to win it back. He also has reason to believe The Storm Troopers are pursuing a hidden agenda, and he’s determined to get to the bottom of it.As Five wrestles with his suspicions, the Romford and Dagenham Gary Numan fan club organise one final battle of the bands. The winner of which, will become the all-time ultimate Numan tribute act. The stakes had never been higher. : NUMAN VERSUS NUMAN Nicky Blue Two tribute acts, one ultimate prize scifiseries: Numan Versus Numan (Alternative 80s Book 1) Two tribute bands. One ultimate prize. Zero room for failure.For years, The Romford Bombers have dominated the Gary Numan tribute band circuit. And then, last year, The Storm Troopers came out of nowhere and stole their crown.The Bombers’ 56-year-old lead singer - named ‘Five’ - will do whatever it takes to win it back. He also has reason to believe The Storm Troopers are pursuing a hidden agenda, and he’s determined to get to the bottom of it.As Five wrestles with his suspicions, the Romford and Dagenham Gary Numan fan club organise one final battle of the bands. The winner of which, will become the all-time ultimate Numan tribute act. The stakes had never been higher.

scifiseries: Numan Versus Numan (Alternative 80s Book 1) Two tribute bands. One ultimate prize. Zero room for failure.For years, The Ro...

Save