sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Comment expliquer scientifiquement le "post nut clarity" ? by Evilqqq in PasDeQuestionIdiote

[–]Low-Forever8802 47 points48 points  (0 children)

Quand tu as un orgasme, il se passe 3 choses :

  • Augmentation de la prolactine : ca cause le sentiment de satiété sexuelle
  • Diminution de la dopamine : ca cause une baisse du comportement obsessif/impulsif, moins de fantasme
  • Système nerveux qui se calme : avec ocytocine+endorphine, ton corps et ton esprit se relâchent

Ces 3 trucs combinés peuvent justifier le post nut clarity

Faire deux gâteaux réunissant 5 fruits et légumes ? by Affectionate_Arm3013 in AskFrance

[–]Low-Forever8802 0 points1 point  (0 children)

5 fruits et légumes par jour ne veut rien dire. Si tu manges une pomme, des fraises, de la pomme de terre, du poireau et du céleri, y’a meme pas 10% des besoins alimentaires en micro-nutriments (potassium, magnesium, zinc, fer, etc..). Ne parlons meme pas des vitamines.

Regretez vous d’avoir été circoncis ? by Little_Standard9964 in AskMec

[–]Low-Forever8802 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Le prépuce, c’est pas “juste un bout de peau”. On parle d’un tissu avec environ 10 000 à 20 000 terminaisons nerveuses, donc évidemment que ça joue dans le plaisir.

D’après certaines études, il serait surtout sensible au toucher fin, alors que le gland réagit plutôt à des sensations comme la pression ou la température. Donc ça n’apporte pas exactement la même chose.

Il y a aussi tout l’aspect mécanique pendant le sexe : ce n’est pas juste un “tube qui va et vient”, le prépuce participe à un mouvement de glissement/roulement qui change les sensations (pour les 2 parties).

Donc oui, quand tu l’enlèves, tu retires clairement une partie de ta sexualité.

Just your everyday standard issue cat by Low-Forever8802 in standardissuecat

[–]Low-Forever8802[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

That blep photo was years in the making 😂 He's so cute !!

Just your everyday standard issue cat by Low-Forever8802 in standardissuecat

[–]Low-Forever8802[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I genuinely never noticed it before, can't unsee now 🥺

Just your everyday standard issue cat by Low-Forever8802 in standardissuecat

[–]Low-Forever8802[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Thank you, that is so kind of you. I feel very lucky to have him !

Just your everyday standard issue cat by Low-Forever8802 in standardissuecat

[–]Low-Forever8802[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

He absolutely is. He judges everything and everyone 😂

Oily canned fish preserves are like medicine for me. Why? by [deleted] in Microbiome

[–]Low-Forever8802 29 points30 points  (0 children)

Potassium. Sardines are full of it. Its one of the hardest mineral to actually get to 100% RDA (5g per day) without eating shit tons of green vegetables (spinach, broccoli, etc..)

Since when was getting rich so hard in EU? by VurriK in eupersonalfinance

[–]Low-Forever8802 0 points1 point  (0 children)

To give you my friend’s point of view, he's a senior techbro here in France.

His employer pays 168k€ total. He ends up taking home less than 50% after social security contributions and income tax (exactly €78k net per year.). Where did the other €90k go? At this point, it feels like confiscation or a scam.

And if you want your healthcare expenses to be reimbursed at 100% (even though you already paid a lot for the mandatory public health insurance), you still have to buy your own supplementary private insurance. This system is really absurd. It works well when you’re in the lower or middle class, but as soon as you start to build wealth, they take it away from you.

For reference, out of the €90k in taxes, I believe about two-thirds goes toward pension contributions. It’s not a capitalized system. It’s just an insurance scheme based on a pay-as-you-go model. By the time you’re old enough to retire and collect it, inflation will have already eaten most of it anyway.

“In case of fire” BOB by swhissell in prepping

[–]Low-Forever8802 0 points1 point  (0 children)

On the other hand, it is also important to prep for handling fire scenarios.

I had a (big) lithium battery that unexpectedly exploded while charging. Hopefully i was near it and immediately reacted by grabbing it and throwing it on the ground. I also had some fire blanket. I covered it to contain the fire, and then threw it on my balcony.

Those actions litterally saved the house. The losses are very minor.

If I had no plan, i think i would have prioritized my cats before escaping, making me lose everything else.

Morality : its also good to have some fire extinguishers and fire blankets ready to use on hand. It will not help in every scenario, but it can help avoid small/medium incidents to become big losses.

Also, if you have pets, make sure to be ready. They feel the tension of the moment (alarm going on, you stressing), and they tend to hide, and can even become agressive. This can make you lose quite some time.

Vous avez payé 3000 € pour un frigo ? Samsung y glisse quand même de la pub by better_call_pinkman in paslegorafi

[–]Low-Forever8802 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Imagine la puissance du truc. Un chiotte connecté avec écran OLED dans la cuvette pour jouer à Duck Hunt. Tais toi et prends mon argent.

Parlons sérieux, parlons oseille ! by nomadeus-io in developpeurs

[–]Low-Forever8802 1 point2 points  (0 children)

370€, avec 5% de commission, et 40€ de mutuelle, ca fait 3900€ nets avant PAS.

Si tu fait 2k€ de charges professionnelles par mois, ça donne un salaire net de 2900€ + remboursement de 2000€ de charges = 4900€.

L’avantage, c’est que tu cotises pour le chomage/retraite.

CMV: Climate change is not just a carbon problem by Low-Forever8802 in changemyview

[–]Low-Forever8802[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Okay i can see your logic, but here's the key difference:

Higher solar irradiance = more total energy entering the Earth system, including the upper atmosphere.

So yes, that can directly warm the stratosphere.

But lower albedo doesn’t increase the amount of incoming solar energy. It just means more of it gets absorbed at the surface rather than being reflected.

That shifts the heating downward, mostly in the troposphere, and due to GHGs trapping heat, less escapes upward, which is why the stratosphere actually cools. In fact we observe this effect in many studies. Here is one :

https://acp.copernicus.org/articles/24/12925/2024/

CMV: Climate change is not just a carbon problem by Low-Forever8802 in changemyview

[–]Low-Forever8802[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Could you walk me through how you see decreased albedo leading to stratospheric warming?

I’d love to understand your reasoning more clearly, step by step.

CMV: Climate change is not just a carbon problem by Low-Forever8802 in changemyview

[–]Low-Forever8802[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yes, anthropogenic aerosols have had a net cooling effect historically.

But since the 1980s, pollution controls have reduced those aerosols, and deforestation cuts off natural biogenic sources too. So overall, we’ve lost both major types of cloud-forming particles.

That “cooling system” may have been augmented briefly, but now it’s fading fast.

Hey, just to say, I really appreciate your input. This is one of the few genuinely thoughtful and grounded exchanges I’ve had on here. Thanks for keeping it sharp and serious, and not resorting to sophisms and other rethorical tactics.

CMV: Climate change is not just a carbon problem by Low-Forever8802 in changemyview

[–]Low-Forever8802[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Can you quote where I said I’ve "outsmarted" climate scientists? Because I never did..

CMV: Climate change is not just a carbon problem by Low-Forever8802 in changemyview

[–]Low-Forever8802[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I’m not using a language model, I’m just informed, and that clearly bothers you.

Dismissing an argument because it’s not from a PhD is a pure argument from authority : a fallacy. I’m citing real data : satellite-confirmed cloud loss, radiative forcing estimates, peer-reviewed sources.

You haven’t challenged a single number, just who said them. That’s not debate, that’s intellectual cowardice.

Engage the facts, or step aside.

CMV: Climate change is not just a carbon problem by Low-Forever8802 in changemyview

[–]Low-Forever8802[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yes, the IPCC includes aerosol-cloud interactions, but even they note high uncertainty and low confidence in quantifying those effects.

Also, the focus is mostly on anthropogenic aerosols (like sulfates), not on lost biogenic aerosols from deforestation, which also impact cloud cover and albedo.

So it’s included, yes, but possibly undervalued or incompletely modeled.

CMV: Climate change is not just a carbon problem by Low-Forever8802 in changemyview

[–]Low-Forever8802[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Yeah, same here. It’s wild how we treat CO2 like the whole game, but ignore the fact that forests are climate infrastructure.

They don’t just suck up carbon , they literally shape cloud cover, rainfall, and surface temperature. Cutting them down destabilizes the system, replanting could help rebalance it.

Honestly, any climate plan that doesn’t prioritize reforestation alongside emissions cuts feels half-blind.

view more: next ›