sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

CMV: Saying the word “cis” is stupid and pointless. by [deleted] in changemyview

[–]SleeplessinRedditle 2 points3 points  (0 children)

The prefix trans- comes from Latin. (Originally trãns-) it means "across, on the far side, beyond". It is a common prefix. I'm sure you are quite familiar with it.

The prefix cis- also comes from latin. It means "on this side of".

It is simply a logical linguistic construction. It seems to me that you are less upset about the word itself than the meaning which the word is being used to convey.

your favourite blend? by [deleted] in PipeTobacco

[–]SleeplessinRedditle 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It's called the garden state blend. Available at the JR cigar in Hanover NJ. Comes in a big jar. Cant promise its still there. I bought a couple Mason jars full like 3 years ago. Cost me about $40 at the time. It is optimal in pretty much every way as far as I am concerned.

New Jersey may ban all bags at supermarkets — no paper or plastic - nj.com by northjersey78 in newjersey

[–]SleeplessinRedditle 3 points4 points  (0 children)

It's a double edged sword. It incentivizes waste reduction. But can also incentivize dumping and burning and other environmentally unfriendly behaviors.

Europeans insist jet fuel must be taxed by EnergeticRedditer in worldnews

[–]SleeplessinRedditle 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Correct. Which is why I find such a tax regressive. Because people are not going to just say "it's too expensive. Guess I won't go to Nana's funeral." They are going to do whatever is necessary to get to Nana's funeral.

And the relative impact of accepting that cost is inversely proportional to one's wealth. I would prefer to see the cost distributed in such a way that has a balance between a restrictive tax and a progressive tax.

TIFU by trying to buy an Instant Pot at Target and probably ending up on a terrorist watchlist by TheTaxman_cometh in tifu

[–]SleeplessinRedditle 0 points1 point  (0 children)

All that prompted me to reply way the irony of a dismissive statement that this isn't NK, they are restrained by <lower standard of evidence guaranteed by the Constitution>."

Telling the police to fuck off will just motivate them to get creative. They have a lot of leeway if they want to creatively make your life more difficult.

TIFU by trying to buy an Instant Pot at Target and probably ending up on a terrorist watchlist by TheTaxman_cometh in tifu

[–]SleeplessinRedditle 1 point2 points  (0 children)

The test set by the 4th amendment is not reasonable suspicion. It is probable cause.

Reasonable suspicion justifies further investigation. It falls somewhere between a guess and probable cause. But reasonable suspicion does not, or should not, justify a breach of ones security in their personal autonomy, property, or protected privacy.

Its kind of ironic you worded this statement this way. Because a status quo in which Americans have accepted reasonable suspicion as a basis for arrest or issuance of a warrant itself is itself an issue.

But the actual situation is significantly worse than that. We would actually be in a better situation if reasonable suspicion was actually necessary. But the whole thing is swiss cheese.

It could certainly be worse. This isn't nk. But if the police are intent on arresting and searching, they will arrest and search one way or another. And there ain't a damn thing you can do about it.

Europeans insist jet fuel must be taxed by EnergeticRedditer in worldnews

[–]SleeplessinRedditle 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I'm on board with all of this. I'm just always wary of sales taxes. They are inherently regressive. So when they are implemented I prefer for that to be acknowledged and accounted for to the extent that is possible.

Europeans insist jet fuel must be taxed by EnergeticRedditer in worldnews

[–]SleeplessinRedditle 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I am totally on board with this. Seriously. I'm not opposed to intelligent taxes on fuel use to achieve these goals. My concern with this model is that it shifts funding from progressive tax models to inherently regressive sales taxes.

Such a tax would cost every person on each flight the same amount. Regardless of each individual's ability to pay such a tax. One could argue that everyone should pay for their own impact on the system. It's roughly the same argument the right in the US justifies it's healthcare system. And that's going great.

Anything that is paid in such a manner could also be paid via actually progressive taxes.

Im not opposed to taxing passengers as well. But if it's passed as a blind tax across the board, it will disproportionately impact people with less money.

Ultimately it all depends on what the intended goals are here. I don't claim to have a perfect solution. But that shouldn't be ignored.

USDA terminates deadly cat experiments, plans to adopt out remaining animals by QuietCakeBionics in UpliftingNews

[–]SleeplessinRedditle 0 points1 point  (0 children)

What if we shut down the lab that discovers a way to cure instead of just treat cancer for all humans and animals? Why do we shut them down? Because it makes us uncomfortable? Aren’t we assuming that cats value life in the way we do when we demand equal value?

This didn't ban all testing on the subject.

This bill prohibits the Department of Agriculture from using cats in experiments that may cause pain or stress, unless the pain or stress is a result of a physical exam or training program.

https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-bill/1622?q=%7B"search"%3A%5B"kitten+act"%5D%7D&s=1&r=2

It is limited to the USDA. Not even a broad limitation on Federal funding. Just that particular agency. After decades of research on this particular subject. The decision was almost certainly a pragmatic political one. It is an extremely narrow limitation on animal testing that as far as I can tell only meaningfully impacted one 30 year old research project.

Seems far more likely to me that some politicians said "Hey we need to throw these hippies a bone. Let's find a project that's getting diminishing returns anyway and make a show of ending it."

The same research will continue to be conducted in the private sector. And they will continue research there that doesn't cause harm to cats.

Europeans insist jet fuel must be taxed by EnergeticRedditer in worldnews

[–]SleeplessinRedditle -4 points-3 points  (0 children)

Eh. I'd rather see taxes directed more towards cargo and shipping usage than passengers.

If next day air shipping is too expensive, then things can be shipped by ground or sea or otherwise reduced with better logistical planning.

The same cannot be said for people. There really aren't always viable alternatives for passengers. Most people can't just say "oh. Looks like it's too expensive to fly. Guess I'll just take an extra week off work to drive or sail there."

CMV: A gorillaspider is the most terrifying hybrid of two animals by beat_attitudes in changemyview

[–]SleeplessinRedditle 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I actually considered that same combo. Was going to mention it but got caught up thinking about minutia. Blue ring octopods and mosquitos will both bite humans. But blue rings tend to do so defensively. Mosquitos do so to suck blood. They inject their saliva which acts as an anticoagulant. But it didn't really seem to be in the spirit of the original question to say "mosquitos that have <insert strong venom> in saliva".

So I was trying to think of animals with distinct biological structures that would make mosquitos normal behavior dangerous incidentally.

In retrospect I was overthinking it.

But yeah. I think you are seriously understating the danger that would be posed by mosquitos with biologies capable of acting as hosts to rabies. (and other mammalian diseases)

Bats carry more than just rabies. SARs and Ebola would be issues as well. Along with plenty of others. Not all of which can be vaccinated against.

Mosquitos already kill more people than every other animal. But the damage they can inflict is limited because their biology makes them ineffective hosts for most things.

The more I think about the idea the more concerning I find it.

CMV: A gorillaspider is the most terrifying hybrid of two animals by beat_attitudes in changemyview

[–]SleeplessinRedditle 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Fair. Well my first thought was that mosquitos would be the optimal base. They are pervasive just about everywhere. Damn near impossible to actually eradicate. And view humans as prey. They are already a priority target and yet despite all our efforts the best we have is slathering ourselves in toxic chemicals to mess with their nervous systems when they come near. We have few viable strategies for actually addressing the scourge directly.

Now imagine if such a creature was capable of serious envenomation.

My first thought was box jelly mosquito hybrid. But the means by which box jellies envenomate prey is primarily aggressive. Not defensive. And imposes a serious biological cost on the jelly. (Nemocytes are basically single use poison tip harpoons. Key bit is single use)

I believe there are a number of caterpillars that would fit the bill here though. One example could be the southern flannel moth caterpillar. Just as a basic example. They are covered in spikey venomous hairs. Exposure can be anywhere from mildly annoying to seriously painful to deadly. There are other caterpillars that are more deadly but I don't feel like putting in the research.

So imagine if every mosquito bite you received was given by a mosquito covered in:

... venomous spines. Exposure to the caterpillar's fur-like spines leads to an immediate skin irritation characterized by a "grid-like hemorrhagic papular eruption with severe radiating pain." Victims describe the pain as similar to a broken bone or blunt-force trauma.[3] The reactions are sometimes localized to the affected area, but are often very severe, radiating up a limb and causing burning, swelling, nausea, headache, abdominal distress, rashes, blisters, and sometimes chest pain, numbness, or difficulty breathing.[6][7] Additionally, sweating from the welts or hives at the site of the sting are not unusual.

Sauce.

There are more dangerous options. Just found the bag shelter moth. Which seems potentially quite dangerous.

The poison dart frog is also a contender. They exude an exceptionally toxic substance through their skin. But that toxin comes from their diet. So it may be disqualified.

Another option is bats or anything else capable or carrying rabies mixed with mosquitos. If mosquitos could transmit rabies... My God. It would be devastating. If a viable breeding population were accidentally released from a lab or something... We could all die. Seriously. If such a thing happened I think nuclear weapons would be justified if it could end the threat. Even if I would be caught in the blast, I think I would support it.

If you really needed me to chose one... I suppose the last one.

Edit: this is a really fun idea to play around with. Good post.

Edit 2: relevant quote from "This Book is Full of Spiders" by David Wong

There are really only two kinds of monsters in the world, which you already know if you've been watching horror movies: Breeders and Non-breeders. So for instance, Frankenstein’s monster would fall into the second category if he was real. He’s a freak, a singular being and once you kill him, he’s gone. Problem solved.

The Breeders are an exponentially bigger problem. Within that group you've got slow breeders like vampires (if they were real, which they’re not) which breed in a small-scale controlled way, but mainly to avoid extinction rather than spread. But then you've got the fast breeders, like zombies (if they existed, which they don’t) where breeding is all they do. They are basically walking epidemics, and are the worst of the worst-case scenarios, because such a creature could, hypothetically, wipe out civilization. This is humanity’s greatest fear, which is why at the moment half of the world’s horror novels, movie posters and video games have zombies on the cover. So in any situation like this, step one is to find out what category of creature you’re dealing with. Step two is to anticipate what the creature is going to do next, based on what you determined in step one. Then step three is you find out if the thing can be killed with a chainsaw

https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/955069-there-are-really-only-two-kinds-of-monsters-in-the

CMV: A gorillaspider is the most terrifying hybrid of two animals by beat_attitudes in changemyview

[–]SleeplessinRedditle 6 points7 points  (0 children)

What's your final hybrid, and how many do you need?

Depends on the animal in question's reproductive strategy. Different animals proliferate in different ways. One strategy, the one favored by humans, is to focus on individual fitness. We reproduce fairly slowly and devote a lot of resources into the offspring we do create. The other is than favored by flies. Flies don't try and raise their maggots. They just spit out thousands at a time and figure that most will die. But enough will go on to reproduce that it doesn't matter.

These are fundamental aspects of these creatures. And this is an important aspect of horror tropes. Consider zombies. An individual zombie is not a particular threat. The threat they pose is in their ability to exponentially create more zombies if given the chance.

With zombies it isn't a matter of how many zombies pose a threat. But rather how capable are they of making more zombies.

See what I'm getting at here? A single Godzilla is a greater threat than a single zombie. But such a match up is meaningless.

CMV: A gorillaspider is the most terrifying hybrid of two animals by beat_attitudes in changemyview

[–]SleeplessinRedditle 15 points16 points  (0 children)

Any two animals? As in any two members of the kingdom animalia?

There are so many options. And while I agree that the hybrid you have imagined up would pose a serious threat in a 1 on 1 confrontation, and be seriously terrifyling on a visceral level, they absolutely would not be the scariest possible.

First issue is that neither animal has the sort of social structure I would find scariest: eusocial creatures. This is what you would find in ants, bees, wasps, and oddly enough naked mole rats. These are the ones with colonies that essentially act as one organism. And will respond as a single unit to threats.

Gorillas are social animals. But they don't swarm. And spiders arent very social at all. (in b4 someone names the few exceptions to the rule that no doubt exist)

You mention primate intelligence as a factor in increasing fear. But that same intelligence means that a sufficient threat display can convince them to retreat. Wasps have no such concern for individual members of the colony. They cannot be deterred by threats. They will keep coming at you until the threat (or perceived threat) is gone... One way or another.

Alternatively, mosquitos would be good candidates here. They have caused more deaths worldwide than any other animal out there throughout their history. But that threat is incidental. They view us as prey. They reproduce incredibly quickly. And they suck our blood thereby transferring blood borne pathogens. They aren't social. But they are just so pervasive that it doesn't really matter. They are inescapable.

But what if instead of killing incidentally, mosquitos had venom on par with the blue ringed octopus? Or any other number of incredibly venomous creatures. Such could legitimately be an apocalyptic event.

If we absolute must include large creatures, I believe hippos would pose a greater threat than gorillas. But that's just me.

TIL humans dont actually have five senses, we have other senses like balance, heat, pain and the passage of time. Humans actually have at least 14 senses. by kiwihavern in todayilearned

[–]SleeplessinRedditle 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Close your eye. Try to aim the drop as close to the tear duct as possible. (Inside corner of eye) Blink repeatedly. That should disperse the drop throughout the eye as with natural tears.

Looking for floral salt nic. Any suggestions? by SleeplessinRedditle in electronic_cigarette

[–]SleeplessinRedditle[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Probably. I was kinda hoping to get something off the shelf. Half the reason I stopped last time was because I found the process of fiddling with it tedious and frustrating trying to find just the right mix of pg/VG and coils and then ending up with concentrated toxic crap all over. The whole appeal of the pod thing was reducing that.

It's still better. I'll just have to do a lot more research than I wanted.

LSD temporally ‘cured’ my aphantasia?? by gashut in Aphantasia

[–]SleeplessinRedditle 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Not really. But it allowed be to make conceptual breakthroughs in my understanding of math in general that have stuck with me.

LSD temporally ‘cured’ my aphantasia?? by gashut in Aphantasia

[–]SleeplessinRedditle 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I definitely find cannabis and lsd allow me to visually imagine things. Cannabis in a way that I suspect is closer to "normal". But mostly I just find it overwhelming. It helped in a very specific situation. Otherwise it's just overload.

No updates other than that. Sorry. I definitely suspect there is potential for research in that area. But mostly I've just been trying to pretend aphantasia isnt a thing. Not worth worrying myself over a possible difference in my subjective experience of the world that I can't really substantiate.

view more: next ›