DradisPing
No bio...
User ID: 1102
DradisPing
11mo ago
greens-proteins-fat-carbs sounds like it's trying to fill you up on greens and protein so you don't overdo it on the fat and carbs.
Apple cider vinegar seems to have some insulin benefits: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31451249/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8243436/
But I admit I don't understand where that's coming from. With white vinegar you'd be tossing a spoonful of dilute acetic acid into the hydrochloric acid in your stomach, which doesn't seem like it would do much. Looks like your stomach lowers pH when you've consumed a protein meal. So this could all be about lowering your stomach pH. With ACV there's probably some beneficial residue from the fermentation.
A lot of diet claims are like traditional medicine. A nonsense process that results in healthy behavior.
The big one to watch out for is vegans. There are a lot of people who are vegan/vegetarian for ideological reasons and consider it their moral duty to make health claims to promote veganism even if it isn't backed by any real science.
DradisPing
11mo ago
One surprising thing some politicians before campaigns is TRT. Higher testosterone levels can make you verbally quicker and wittier. Andrew Sullivan wrote about it back in the '00s.
Of course it can also boost your sex drive, which is probably why Anthony Weiner kept getting caught up in sexting scandals whenever he tried to run.
DradisPing
11mo ago
No one is piss testing presidential candidates, so that's not a concern.
DradisPing
11mo ago
In any event, whether vessels in restricted fisheries have to pay for observers required under the Magnuson-Stevens Act or whether the North Atlantic Fisheries Service has to pay for them isn't likely to be a topic of discussion here when the lower courts make their determination.
My understanding is that congress allowed fishing councils to pass regulations to require observers, but that would be balanced against the NAFS budget for enforcement. Deciding that every ship needed a compliance observer and the ship needed to pay for it was a huge bureaucratic expansion.
Under Obama the EPA classified CO2 as a pollutant subject to their jurisdiction. Taken to absurdity, the EPA could start requiring every household pay for their own emissions observer to monitor their gas stove usage, car idling, and excessive breathing.
Obviously that's too far. But imagine if forcing the ships to pay without legislation becomes a well established government right. The ATF could start forcing various businesses to pay for frequent inspections.
DradisPing
11mo ago
The SCOTUS just ruled on the Missouri v Biden case about the government interfering with social media. The SCOTUS wussed out and declared no standing. Twitter / X probably realized it was going to go the government's way when no opinion was released last week.
So we're back to the government juicing "appropriate" narratives.
DradisPing
11mo ago
The issue is mandatory insurance / government money for "gender affirming" treatments. Plastic surgery isn't covered.
Very few parents have both the inclination and the money to trans their kid. If the courts weren't forcing government / insurers / parents to pay then their would be so few cases it wouldn't be seen as a problem the legislature needs to tackle.
DradisPing
11mo ago
From the POSIWID perspective, one could consider the purpose of pride month to be to spike hostility against LGBT people, so why do it?
They aren't trying to spike hostility, they are trying to make their opponents feel ruled. Spiking hostility is meant to show them how impotent and powerless they are.
DradisPing
11mo ago
Anderson was rushed because removing Trump from the ballot during primary season was an irremediable injury. Other states would have have tried to do the same thing and clearing up the issue needed to be done.
United States v. Trump is different because the prosecution's demands for a speedy trial aren't well grounded in any legitimate need. Courts often move slow, 2-4 years wouldn't be unusual given the number of documents and unique legal issues.
Skipping the appeals courts would have been strange. SCOTUS will typically let the appeals courts have their say so they can take those arguments into consideration. Jack Smith tried to time things so he could get a DC conviction before the election and appeals courts wouldn't be able to weigh in until after the election. SCOTUS didn't see any reason to help him do that.
This isn't well developed enough for a main thread post, but it's something I've been mulling around lately.
Are we too hard on small scale corruption from politicians? Politicians motivated by implementing their grand vision seems like they'll screw things up. If they're motivated by accolades from their ideological group members it can also lead to bad things. A guy who wants to keep things running smoothly so he can skim a little doesn't sound too bad in comparison.
This is partly motivated by thinking about the housing situation in Ontario (Canada). Various interests have collided to create a continuing housing bubble. Many politicians have invested in rental units. Municipal governments have shifted to development fees to avoid property tax increases. The urban left has been fighting for no housing until there's enough subsidized affordable housing for the needy, ie them. No one puts pressure on the bureaucrats at various levels of government to approve things. Trudeau has been brining in vast numbers of immigrants despite the housing shortage to keep the bubble going.
Here's my idea. On top of the rent, each unit has to pay a monthly $30 fee. $10 for their municipal, provincial, and federal representative. This money goes straight into the politicians bank account.
Suddenly politicians will have an interest in getting new rental housing on the market.
More options
Context Copy link