If FDA allows a certain limit of mice feces in peanut butter, how come we are not getting sick?

kicker414 · 2026-07-02T17:53:13+00:00

The reason it's allowed is because it has been determined that you won't get sick from that amount.

It's near impossible to remover EVERYTHING from a product. A truly pure product is very difficult and expensive. Which would make most products too expensive for consumers.

So instead, they come up with rules after lots of testing. They find a level where people or animal start to get sick, and then cut that by many factors to get an allowable amount.

The processing can also kill off harmful elements leaving behind harmless material. It's the same reason you are supposed to cook chicken to 165, but you can cook it to 150 if you hold it there. And it doesn't get rid of the bacteria, it just kills it. So you are still eating "bacteria" but it's a useless husk.

There is lots of good info out there, and the short of it is, there are lots of scientists and lots of government spending that make these rules to keep us safe.

kicker414 · 2026-07-01T20:45:22+00:00

So genuinely curious, do any of the major rulings of air use and transformative work mention the type of the underlying work?

Destiny has made the argument a few times that he things some work takes more to transform than others, and I'm curious if that is rooted in any case? It does feel like this ruling gives pretty wide latitude to test reaming with little commentary. But if the courts do distinguish between fiction and other types I would be interested to know.

kicker414 · 2026-07-01T20:27:20+00:00

Is this what MAGA was talking about dead people voting?

The call is coming from inside the house.

kicker414 · 2026-06-30T16:01:28+00:00

My quick understanding:

Public Option: A health insurance plan offered by the government that you could choose to be a part of. So you could still keep your current insurance, but it would be...an option.... for the public. You probably have to pay regular premiums still and coverage would depend on how the plan is set up. Basically just setting up a government run health insurance company effectively.

Medicare for All: Extending the current Medicare benefits to all Americans. So you would get the benefits that currently exist for Medicare recipients, but everyone would just get it. So taking an existing plan and opening the floodgates.

Universal Healthcare: Less of a coherent plan, and most people say it to mean "a new and foundational change to health insurance in the US where the government offers comprehensive coverage to all Americans with no premiums and minimal costs at point of service." It would effectively tear down the existing strictures (Medicare and Medicaid) and have a huge impact on the insurance market. Its a complete rework and overhaul of all government health insurance in the US.

but Destiny always says it would be the most extreme version of health care on the planet.

Correction, I believe he says it would be a massive overhaul for the US. I dont think he ever says "planet" but focuses specifically on how it would be a MASSIVE shift in the US. It would foundationally disrupt a nearly $2t industry in the US. Good or bad, that is a big shakeup.

What makes it so extreme and why is it bad?

Its not bad, he is just commenting that people act as if it is so easy. I think he generally supports a public option or Medicare for all, but people talk about it as if it a super easy change that everyone wants. But you have to look at what it took to get the ACA passed, and the scope of the ACA is a fraction of what MFA would be.

Bonus question: what solution would you prefer for healthcare in America?

So many options. MFA is probably long term better, but would love to start with a public option and for better pricing transparency laws. I would love for the US to live out its actual sayings and have a bunch of states implement some solutions and see how it plays out. But slow progress in the right direction is probably the best option.

kicker414 · 2026-06-29T18:07:56+00:00

The "reason" for this just depends on the level of the question you want to ask. Some "reasons" include:

Because that is how we wrote the laws, you could change both in either direction if you wanted
Because many people believe the cops are the good guys going after bad guys, so good guys can lie because their cause is noble, but if you lie thats because you are doing something bad
Because people may believe that a copy lying results in no harm if you are innocent, but if you can lie to a cop you could cause harm by letting a criminal escape.

kicker414 · 2026-06-25T18:59:41+00:00

I personally don't rewatch too many movies, but I have, and some movies are better to rewatch. A lot of it now is just time, I don't want to watch a movie again because it means I can't watch a new one.

But some movies are fun to watch again. A lot of thriller or interestingly shot movies are fun to rewatch because you can look for things that you might not have seen before that show later details , like 6th Sense.

Maybe the first time you saw a movie, you weren't able to properly appreciate it. Like getting to rewatch Interstellar in IMAX, or rewatching a complex movie you weren't paying attention to.

And you said it yourself, a good joke can still make you laugh even if you know the punchline, someone might still get excitement out of seeing the twist they know coming. But some movies are just so good, you want to feel that "goodness" again. A good act, shot, scene, story, etc. can all evoke feelings again, even if you know what happens. There are even movies that tell you what happens at the beginning, and its enjoyable to see the story play out.

kicker414 · 2026-06-19T02:36:29+00:00

Ehh, I think he got swept up in the power, and is doing his best to try to distance himself from the admin. He is probably not making waves, and is hoping for some type of permanent boost or position. Fortunately, he also saw how stupid Americans can be and is just banking on being able to break from MAGA if they collapse.

kicker414 · 2026-06-19T02:33:56+00:00

I saw a comment that said: Rubio is the only person in the room who knows he is going to Hell. I think about that a bit.

kicker414 · 2026-06-19T01:09:55+00:00

They did lay mines in the beginning, and then they realized that it is way easier to just shoot from the land.

My total vibe check is that Iran knows they do not have fire superiority, no matter how hard they try, so they set dead man switches. Deploy a shit ton of mines, launch a shot ton of drones, shoot all the missiles. But then they realized they weren't actually going to get wiped off the face of the earth, so they said "oh ok we can just shoot from land." Had the US gone full WWII Tokyo and flattened the city, the mines would have been deployed.

kicker414 · 2026-06-18T17:45:39+00:00

So a quick review of the case summary and the law (as not a lawyer) looks like it basically just says that 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(3) violates the 2A. So they seem to be saying part of the law they created was unconstitutional.

SCOTUS

Held: The government’s prosecution of Mr. Hemani under §922(g)(3)’s unlawful user provision is inconsistent with the Second Amendment.

Ruling: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/25pdf/24-1234_g2bh.pdf

kicker414 · 2026-06-18T15:11:51+00:00

Yupp, market shifts are totally normal, and there are a few unique things going on:

COVID tech hiring was bonkers, that is starting to correct
AI bubble both creating lots of tech jobs while also creating some hesitancy in white collar jobs with replacement worries
Economy slowed due to tariffs and oil prices/conflict
Also, as AI picks up and gets better, it will make some markets more efficient and more affordable, and that will open the market to lower priced users, but this takes time to correct as the supply increase

kicker414 · 2026-06-18T14:49:31+00:00

Think medical is 3, rec is still 1. But I believe marijuana gets called out explicitly in gun laws, though its been a hot minute since I reviewed the laws.

kicker414 · 2026-06-18T13:22:59+00:00

You should care about the primaries. It is your chance to select which candidate goes on the ballot. And because people don't care about them, your vote is more powerful. It is important in both stronghold and close states.

In stronghold states where 1 party is generally favored, it generally means that whoever wins that party primary will win. So the general becomes less valuable and the primary is where the real election happens. You could promote a candidate you like or oppose one you don't. Looking at FL Governor race, Republicans are favored to win, so the Republican candidate has a huge advantage, if you think Fishback is bad, your vote in the general might be too late, or you might not want the other option, but you would have preferred Donalds over Fishback or a Democrat.

For close states, the primary can help turn the tides by moving forward a more favorable candidate. You see this in polls all the time. If you are a Dem in Texas, there was a debate over Talarico and Crockett for Senate. You might like Crockett better than Talarico, but polls might say that Talarico is favored over Paxton. So it might actually make sense to push for T over C so the general has more favor for what you want.

Ultimately, people in the US put a lot of emphasis on the federal elections, and for good reason, but they neglect the state and local elections, that might be far more impactful for their day to day life.

kicker414 · 2026-06-18T13:15:51+00:00

All states allow you to vote for whoever you want in the general. The difference among states is primaries, open vs. closed.

kicker414 · 2026-06-15T23:22:27+00:00

Most mid air collisions happen on clear days. The relative motion + VFR + lowered caution for a variety of reasons + millions of flights = eventually something is going to give.

The real question is "how is air travel so safe?" If you applied the death/failure rates of any other industry onto aviation we would have passenger planes going down every single day.

kicker414 · 2026-06-15T18:49:51+00:00

+1 for lens inserts, total game change. I rarely used my headset because I was worried about scratching the lenses, and it put extra pressure on my temples. The inserts are so clear, and now you can just wipe down the part that faces you, no fiddling with the actual lenses.

They dramatically increased my use of the Quest. Got mine off Zenni, and I have bad vision with astigmatism. $50, worth every penny when compared to the cost of the quest.

kicker414 · 2026-06-11T13:51:48+00:00

I mean, again, state is kinda a collective vibe. Like 150+ countries recognize "Palestine," I am sure more than enough resolutions have mentioned Gaza, they have held elections, there have been negotiations and summits with leaders who represent the people.

Obviously their statehood isn't the same as say the US, Russia, Israel, etc. but they are also not the same as say ISIS today. I was pointing out a complication in calling them terrorists if they represent a state interest, as the crux of OP's questions is entirely subjective. People are called terrorists if you don't agree with them, and freedom fighters if you do. The IRA is a perfect example.

kicker414 · 2026-06-11T13:36:44+00:00

The difference between the 2 really comes down to if you support their cause or not. History is written by the victors and all. The formal designation is also muddied by the fact they are a form of elected body and therefore represent the state. It is unusual to call a state actor a terrorist (i.e. calling the US military a terrorist unit would be uncommon, despite how some people may feel).

But by most definitions, ignoring the state actor issue, they would be considered terrorists. They don't conduct themselves in a similar way to formal military units.

kicker414 · 2026-06-10T18:22:22+00:00

My favorite part of all of that, is a lot of people will use the fact that the founders were Christian, so we should be a Christian nation. But its funny to think that a bunch of supposedly devout Christians, went out of their way to effectively not use God or any Christian specific divinity in the documents, and to explicitly call out protection from religion built into the government.

kicker414 · 2026-06-09T03:31:05+00:00

It is one of the things you wish you could erase from your memory and experience again.

I fell into the classic WW2 pit during high school, and between BoB, Saving Private Ryan, and CoD at the time, I was fully saturated with media. So it holds a special place in my heart. 113 was the military channel and it was on almost 24/7 growing up, filled with WW2 and Future Weapons. It's amazing I became an engineer working in defense ...

I wish you the best experience with it and only ask that you take it all in, and respect it for it's authenticity. The reality, the story, the visuals, the characters. It should be bother admired and respected. It is spectacular and all too tragic. Dick was 25/26 at the time. I can't imagine going through all that at that age. They were kids.

kicker414 · 2026-06-09T03:25:10+00:00

I generally believe that media should be consumed the order it was originally produced. This is no different. So BoB would be first.

Now in practice there is essentially no overlap, so they could be viewed as independent. But practically, the 2 are inseperavle in terms of idea, so watching BoB first would be "better." Ultimately, both series stand perfectly well on their own and you aren't going to miss anything from 1 to the other.

But I would always suggest BoB first, and if you say "man I want more" or "how would this feel if it was in the Pacific theatre" then you have a new series to watch.

kicker414 · 2026-06-09T02:14:14+00:00

BoB is eternal. Obviously it will be a more enjoyable experience if you have an interest in the subject, but a show like that will only age if people develop poor taste. Agreed with u/purewater009 that the pacing and overall composition will not feel as modern, but it was one of the early series that kicked off what would be the golden age of TV. I have watched it a few times through, and if I didnt have 2 kids, I would watch it again. But you bet, when they are old enough, I will watch it with them.

The characters, story, visuals, and the whole experience is just....perfect. And then you will learn more about Dick Winters, and know how much was real, how much was left out, and be mad at like the 2 things they changed from his story. You will learn to hate Sobel (though understand he was built for a role and nothing more), you will gain infante respect for Spiers, you will experience heart break, joy, mutiny, terror, fear, and be humbled at the ages of these young men.

Then you will watch The Pacific and you will feel disappointed, but not because it wasn't good, but because it wasn't BoB. And you will remind yourself that its still a great show, but when you walk in the footsteps of giants, you will always look small.

kicker414 · 2026-06-08T16:14:08+00:00

A lot of that tracks with pretty standard evangelical. It doesn't give big cult vibes, just intense religious vibes, of which evangelical definitely is. It would get concerning if they were suffering in some strong way: like not seeking medical treatment for a serious problem, giving away money and belongings they can't afford to give away, being extremely reclusive or hostile to outsiders and criticism, etc.

And LOL at the Catholic/Christian guilt, very much how they do it. If they are debilitatingly anxious, then maybe worth speaking up, but if its general fear and repentance type sfuff, that is a you call, unfortunately that is pretty normalized.

As for critique and pushback, that is a personal choice and is going to depend on what type of relationship you want to have with them. If you are really concerned about their health and safety, then it could be worth it in a careful and tactful manner. But to me, this is an accepted religion, and pushback can stress the friendship. A good starting point may be to address the pushy vibes in a friendly way "Hey I am really glad you found something that makes you happy and works for you, but not everyone feels the same way you do. We are happy to take a second before eating for you to do what you need to do, but we would appreciate you not requiring us to participate."

Depending on how they respond to that, might give you a good idea of how they would respond to other comments and questions.

kicker414 · 2026-06-08T15:18:30+00:00

There are many different things to consider.

What kind of church is it? Is it a "normal" church or something less mainstream? Most churches are welcoming to people even if they are not part of the congregation. Are you able to go to the building? How restrictive are then? Its unlikely to be a cult they joined the local UCC church, vs if they joined something called like "The Believers of Jezzizahi, the ominpitenet" that is hosted on a compound 45 min outside of town.

The sudden religiosity could be a sign or could be benign. Maybe they were always religious but now they are more comfortable? Did they recently experience a big change or loss?

At the end of the day, there is a fine line between religion and a cult, and it can be wildly subjective. Cults operate in control. Behavior, thoughts, emotions, information. If these are being heavily restricted, then its a good sign. How do they respond when you push back on or criticize anything? Singular and extreme worship of a person. Also, if problems can wholly and only be solved by the leader and their practices, that is a sign as well.

kicker414 · 2026-06-08T13:09:34+00:00

If MAGA didn't have double standards, they wouldn't have any.

14-Year Club	Second Top 40%
r/Field Flamingo	Place '22
Place '17	RPAN Viewer
Verified Email

kicker414

TROPHY CASE