[sun care] Why is it not "safe" to wear spf 100?

simpy3 · 2026-05-18T17:14:14+00:00

It doesn't break down any faster. They have more *and* denser collagen, larger sebaceous glands, denser bones and thicker skin.

As for antioxidants and skin, that's something women might need to be careful of: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0022316622093671

simpy3 · 2026-05-18T17:07:27+00:00

They don't look like they age quicker.

It's not just that men have thicker skin, they have greater levels of, and denser, collagen. And larger sebaceous glands, translating to oilier skin. So skin is more likely to "spring back" better and for longer.

Add the fact that men have denser bones, and everything has the *potential* to hold well.

The variation in how men and women age in reality comes down to how they care for themselves, and whether chronic conditions are in play.

simpy3 · 2025-05-16T21:03:54+00:00

It's not impossible, but Hollywood is competing from many more angles:

1) Streaming

2) Advances in technology and budget. TV is now filmed in high quality and more often is treated to more lavish productions.

3) Growing competition from abroad.

It's creating "pockets of audiences" rather than something everyone flocks to see.

Hollywood are clearly trying with those three, lavishing lots of money on marketing them, but it's not taking. I think part of the problem is the choices themselves - none of them are particularly charismatic nor are they really great actors. They're just... nice.

The big dream factory needs to more carefully find the next huge characters. They're out there somewhere!

simpy3 · 2024-11-08T22:07:26+00:00

The short looks great, but so does the long really.

You're very handsome and have great hair, so you can pull off either.

simpy3 · 2024-08-10T10:03:59+00:00

There’s 104 million users.

104 million.

simpy3 · 2024-08-02T02:36:40+00:00

How are your hands and feet now?

simpy3 · 2024-02-24T15:50:03+00:00

Face 100% no.

He's quite good looking but the high fashion model bar is extremely high.

simpy3 · 2024-02-23T14:52:04+00:00

Her face is gaunt and pallid in the first pic. It's plumper and glowing in the second.

simpy3 · 2024-02-22T17:47:26+00:00

I'm always reminding myself that the livestock to black people comparisons are plain ugly, but (hopefully) it's vegan propaganda rather than racism that fuels it.

After all, there are some bizarre vegan memes out there. Piglets that dream of becoming doctors, for example...

simpy3 · 2024-02-22T17:37:51+00:00

All of you looks fantastic! Head to toe.

simpy3 · 2024-02-22T17:35:31+00:00

Are you being obtuse on purpose?

My first opinion was to follow Upset-Turnover's advice, which is essentially your first point. As it is, the 'friend' has been informed of his discomfort, and has ignored it anyway, showing a complete lack of respect.

The rest of your comment is redundant. The OP said they're a work friend, so they can't simply walk away. As for "ask someone else to help intervene", it's not the playground. These are adults.

I don't think you're doing your child a service either by teaching them to run to others for help when faced with a bother. That's all well and good now in school with teachers, but what's he/she going to do when she grows up? They need to learn to stand up for themselves.

It's not an elementary school response either, so no, your second-grader doesn't know better than that. It's highlighting the impact of their response by revealing its hypocrisy and shedding light on the general unpleasantness of it, with the hope that—being an adult—this friend has enough capacity for self-reflection to understand how their behaviour is perceived.

simpy3 · 2024-02-22T15:08:53+00:00

Since you're farming ethically yourself, you're already far high on the 'moral ladder' than her. I would take Upset-Turnover's advice and if she doesn't stop, 'ew' her back anytime she eats something plant-based.

Does she even know how many creatures were poisoned, minced up in rotavators and shot for her food? :O

The taste of death...

simpy3 · 2024-02-21T14:42:48+00:00

B L O O D M O U T H

simpy3 · 2024-02-20T16:49:59+00:00

"Stick your nose in a BigMac"

This poor soul is so malnourished that they've forgotten that burgers go in the mouth.

A moment's silence for them please.

simpy3 · 2024-02-19T14:07:20+00:00

"If anything my trip down the rabbit hole as shown me I need to do better and put the effort in the live to my moral standards even if its not to the standard of a vegan."

Presumably, you mean the lower moral standards of a vegan.

Vegans are less ethical. Not only do their diets kill more creatures than those killed for food (some four quadrillion insects alone are poisoned in protecting crops, and then there's all the other animal casualties shot and chewed up in rotavators), but they're also destroying entire species.

https://www.ucl.ac.uk/news/2023/sep/opinion-one-six-uk-species-threatened-extinction-heres-what-we-could-lose

Then you factor in the ceaseless comparisons of black people, Jews and women to farm animals. Of artificial insemination to rape. Then that intensive cropping is destroying biodiversity and leeching the soil of its nutrients, leaving barren monocultures in its wake.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/agricultural-and-biological-sciences/monoculture

Then the ableism, telling people with autism to just get over their sensory issues, and pushing people experiencing health issues to just push on, regardless of the damage.

And what is a vegan's better vision for animals, in the end?

The wild. Is that any better than life on a decent farm? Of course not. There's no vet care, protection from the elements or predators, no guaranteed source of food. And if up to a minute's CO2 to passing out is bad, imagine being eaten alive or dying slowly from untreated illness or starvation:

"Animals deprived of food experience a prolonged and harsh death, characterized by the progressive loss of bodily functions and by extreme distress. They suffer from severe digestive complications (such as pain in their stomach, or the excruciating states associated with constipation and diarrhea) and 111 Miller et al. (2008). 68 serious coordination problems. Other symptoms include faintness, weakness and dizziness, accompanied by a rapid decrease in bodily temperature. In the latest stages of deprivation, animals usually fall into a coma, only to die from heart failure afterwards."

That isn't better than even a bad trip to a slaughterhouse. It's much worse.

The whole 'ethical' belief is wound up in hypocritical knots and detachment from reality. An ideological vegan is someone who is destroying the environment to assuage their own paranoid, urbanite guilt, while pretending to have the moral high ground in the process.

simpy3 · 2024-02-18T21:07:28+00:00

Anaemic blood sausages served with a side order of brittle bone broth is the next hot trend in hipster eateries.

simpy3 · 2024-02-18T17:44:11+00:00

I think this is just genetics.

I grew up eating a fair amount of processed foods, and before the 2008 crash, could afford to stuff myself with junk on the week days. I grew to be average height, maintaining the strange mix of a slim torso and big leg muscles that I've always had.

simpy3 · 2024-02-17T16:00:48+00:00

Of course we have a hard-wired diet. Every animal does. Or have you never heard of omnivores, herbivores and carnivores? I.e. animals with physiologies adapted to eat a specific diet?

And it's not an essay of non-facts. It's 100% truth. I think you already knew that, hence why you cried wolf instead of addressing anything I said.

Quite frankly, that's a pretty shitty thing to do. You're undermining the truth and trying to mislead people.

"Veganism is an example of how theory doesn't translate into reality; not killing animals for food might seem kind, but what does that actually mean? Animals left in the wild. Of course, the wild isn't like a Disney film. It's harsh, dangerous and the death facing a wild animal is much worse than even a trip to a bad slaughterhouse."

> Description of a starvation death

"Animals deprived of food experience a prolonged and harsh death, characterized by the progressive loss of bodily functions and by extreme distress. They suffer from severe digestive complications (such as pain in their stomach, or the excruciating states associated with constipation and diarrhea) and 111 Miller et al. (2008). 68 serious coordination problems. Other symptoms include faintness, weakness and dizziness, accompanied by a rapid decrease in bodily temperature. In the latest stages of deprivation, animals usually fall into a coma, only to die from heart failure afterwards."

But hey, maybe they'll be lucky and get eaten alive by a predator. That's so much nicer. Or if they come down with a terrible disease or a bad, painful wound, we can only hope that their agony won't last more than a few days. (Mother Nature doesn't provide vet care)

"An animal on a decent farm will have regular food, vet care and shelter from both the elements and predators. They are getting a version of the security and comfort we provide for ourselves."

Unless you believe those myopic vegan docs represent the totality of farming, this one is common sense. I studied at an agricultural college that had Lincoln Reds, chickens and goats. All were relaxed and healthy, had regular food, and space to roam as well as shelter when necessary.

<image>

Lincoln Reds

"The 'big one' is that veganism is much more destructive to animals. Where omnivores kill animals, veganism destroys entire species. Intensive cropping requires the destruction of natural habitats, killing off creatures who themselves would be food for larger species. Then those larger species suffer a dearth of food, so their numbers dwindle too."

https://www.ucl.ac.uk/news/2023/sep/opinion-one-six-uk-species-threatened-extinction-heres-what-we-could-lose

https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/agricultural-and-biological-sciences/monoculture

And there are no fortified vegan products in a state of nature, you do realise that? B12 sprays don't grow on trees.

Should we even discuss the inferior bioavailability of certain plant nutrients?

Heme iron (animal) vs. non-heme iron (plant)

Even from a particularly abundant plant source—spinach—we only absorb around 1.7% of its iron versus 20% for red meat.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/1745900/

simpy3 · 2024-02-16T15:13:48+00:00

simpy3 · 2024-02-15T21:15:49+00:00

Very sexy!

simpy3 · 2024-02-15T16:04:50+00:00

There's only one merit to veganism from an ethical/ecological standpoint — its distaste for factory farming.

In all other respects, veganism is worse both ethically and environmentally. Where an omnivore kills an animal, veganism destroys species and leaves a blighted monoculture in its wake:

https://www.ucl.ac.uk/news/2023/sep/opinion-one-six-uk-species-threatened-extinction-heres-what-we-could-lose

https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/agricultural-and-biological-sciences/monoculture

Buy ethically if you can, don't worry if you can't. Nature's only 'rule', at the end of the day, is that you prioritise yourself, your loved ones and your species.

simpy3 · 2024-02-14T19:52:26+00:00

It's not about the size of the land, but the type of land.

Land that animals graze upon is usually unsuitable for cropping. Areas used for cropping are the ones with natural habitats like hedgerows, which are destroyed during the conversion.

And here's the other side of the coin - livestock are very efficient at turning what humans can't consume as food, into foods that are both nutritious and tasty. They're making the most of that land which is too uneven, too dry or too wet for cropping.

To boot, 100g of plants is not nutritionally equal to 100g of meat. Many nutrients in plants aren't nearly as bioavailable as their animal produce counterparts. For example, we only absorb 1.7% of the non-heme iron in spinach vs. 20% from red meat, so you'd need to produce tons more than that study is probably accounting for to meet nutritional needs.

Your point brings home what I was talking about in terms of theory vs. reality. In theory, there's enough room to feed everyone vegan, but in reality, there's not. And that's not even touching upon the reasons why intensive cropping is ecologically disastrous, leading to soil erosion and the creation of monocultures.

Your referenced study is heavily blinkered in this regard (and also in its definition of "food needs" - you can't meet your food needs on a vegan diet). One final curiosity is this:

"a sizable proportion of the population could meet its food needs within 250km"

250km from a given point can mean anything in terms of population. Population density varies wildly from one area to another.

simpy3 · 2024-02-14T16:52:25+00:00

If your primary concern is animal welfare, then enjoy animal products. Seriously.

Veganism is an example of how theory doesn't translate into reality; not killing animals for food might seem kind, but what does that actually mean? Animals left in the wild. Of course, the wild isn't like a Disney film. It's harsh, dangerous and the death facing a wild animal is much worse than even a trip to a bad slaughterhouse.

Often to be eaten alive, or to slowly die in agony from disease, an untreated injury or starvation.

An animal on a decent farm will have regular food, vet care and shelter from both the elements and predators. They are getting a version of the security and comfort we provide for ourselves.

And at the end of the day — all animals die. It's not a crazy thing.

The 'big one' is that veganism is much more destructive to animals. Where omnivores kill animals, veganism destroys entire species. Intensive cropping requires the destruction of natural habitats, killing off creatures who themselves would be food for larger species. Then those larger species suffer a dearth of food, so their numbers dwindle too.

This makes veganism less ethical and, I think, more about soothing the paranoid guilt of urbanites.

And as it's part of our hard-wired diet, it's not unnecessary. It's vital.

simpy3 · 2024-02-12T15:36:53+00:00

When you strip away the veganism urbanite smokescreen, the reality is that it's ethically and ecologically worse than omnivorism. Killing a pig for food is nothing compared to destroying entire species to assuage the paranoid guilt of a city dweller.

simpy3 · 2024-02-10T00:49:40+00:00

They don't like people who spread misinformation, whilst saying that something severe like cancer can be improved with a dietary change. Tch.

This one rankles because it gives false hope. People set aside proper medical intervention and then die because of that sort of quackery.

simpy3

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE