Although I do not personally feel that apartments are inherently depressing, perhaps someone who was more worried about exactly what decisions they are allowed to make about their living space might. They may be considering the lack of agency one experiences in some regards as a renter, which could make them feel as though every apartment type situation was inherently depressing.

It would not make a chain reaction because the nuclei of typical atoms are unlikely to split when irradiated (that is to say, hit by the pieces of the original atom that split) and will more likely ionize (have an electron knocked off) or transmute (turn into a different element by changing the number of protons).

In nuclear weapons or reactors the uranium must be “enriched” because regular uranium atoms are too stable to sustain a fission reaction. We must have a high amount of rare uranium-235 (the easily splittable isotope) compared to U-238 (the more common stabler isotope) which is why uranium needs to be enriched. Most of the atoms in your salad are stable isotopes, so there will likely not be any cascading fission reactions even if your teeth were somehow able to trigger one (or even 1000) every single time you took a bite.

Here is a review paper listing many peer reviewed sources relating to the circadian rhythm:

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8800593/

The circadian rhythm in mammals has a large body of scientific evidence.

Yes I do in fact apply this same exact logic to soldiers in WWII - just as it applies to many of the people who made up fighting forces in the past. There is a long, loooong history of using dogma, duty, brainwashing, even intoxication, to manipulate people into fighting to the death.

If you read firsthand accounts from German soldiers (or really ANY nationality) during WWII, you will quickly realize that they were heavily propagandized in a way we can only begin to understand today. Young German men during WWII had grown up under Nazi rule and had it drilled into their heads at every possible moment. And the choice was to conform or to be shunned (or more likely killed). This does not excuse any of the atrocities they committed, but gives context to their actions and shows how blaming only the soldiers misses a big part of the picture. The same goes for atrocities perpetrated upon the German people by the red army, or for atrocities carried out by IDF in Palestine, etc…

Also, I think you should reflect on the language you use in your comments. I am attempting to be polite, but your comments are outwardly rude.

Well I am talking about how I think most people who join the military are brainwashed.

More explicitly: yes they know that the military is about violent force, but I think most of them have a warped worldview pressed on them from a young age (often from an upbringing in a military family) that describes the situation very differently from how you or I would see it. They are indoctrinated to understand their participation in the military as a duty - both to their family and to an inner voice. I think most of them would say (when first joining) that the military kills “bad guys,” which obviously isn’t true but they have been conditioned to see it that way and much of history (especially concerning military atrocities) is omitted from their upbringing. So in my opinion your take that they are joining with the intention of murdering innocent people isn’t really accurate for most of them.

If you think discussion and communication are so worthless… Why keep commenting on Lemmy? We are all here to exchange ideas and I think that we can agree that ideas and how they spread can change the world in a big way.

Silence/lack of discussion is part of what has allowed this issue to become so serious.

In my opinion this is a reductive take on the issue. Realize that human beings can make mistakes and that not everyone understands the world the same way or even has the same knowledge.

I won’t excuse murdering innocent people, but I don’t think most people joining the US military go into it thinking “yippie time to murder innocents.”

I think most people who join have been indoctrinated (usually from a very early age) to think that the military is something it is not. While this does not excuse their behavior, it helps us to understand that the issue is not about an individuals misguided decision to join the military but rather the large scale manipulation/brainwashing of poor people. Blaming the soldier makes sense if they do something horrible or if they are truly aware of how bad the military’s actions are and continue to serve, but blaming ALL soldiers just for the act of joining is pointless because most of them don’t fully understand what is going on.

In my opinion there may be a better option for you (unless you have a clinically bad case of extra sweat, which obviously is another thing). Try a deodorant that aims to control the population of bacteria on your armpits. Bacteria are what actually produce the chemicals that smell bad. Since switching to a scentless bacteria controlling deodorant, I still sweat but my stink is gone. Same for my partner. And it’s much healthier for you in my opinion.

https://superdeodorant.com/

This was for real life changing for us.

For which Volkswagen was fined approximately $30 million… Compared to having grossed €59.5 billion in 2024… Nothing more than a slap on the wrist. Cost of doing business, you could say.

This does not convince me that we should redirect all effort away from environmental legislation. In my view human rights are very much intertwined with environmental stewardship.

deleted by creator

Even if you feel that the white house should stop being used as an active part of the USA government, it doesn’t make sense to tear it down.

Take Auschwitz for example - a horrible place, but worth preserving so that future generations can see history in person and learn from the past. At the very least, the whitehouse is worth preserving for its historical value, if nothing else.

I would say that food scarcity in preindustrial countries is not “manufactured” per se, because there isn’t an excess of food lying around in those places. You are right that people there starve in part because it isn’t profitable to get food to them, but there are other reasons too such as lack of adequate infrastructure to store and transport food and perhaps even lack of trained personnel to distribute it etc.

So really I think for preindustrial countries it’s a complex picture that basically boils down to the oppositional philosophy generally held when considering international relations. So in a situation like that I think it isn’t accurate to say that scarcity was manufactured in order to justify the existence of capitalism.

Also your statement that it isn’t profitable to industrialize other nations and so we don’t seems contrary to what I understand, which is that it is often profitable and that is why developed nations are often trying to invest in industrialization efforts (of course taking their unfair piece of the action in doing so). I feel that this principal of investing in industrialization has largely guided the international efforts of China, the USA, and others.

I think there is a big difference between “tough love” and unkindness. I don’t think being unkind is ever the best way to encourage someone to improve. Instead be “blunt” in communication/upfront with constructive criticism - which I see as a kindness.

It was not a relief, however, to learn that the sun will expand to be so large as to fully encompass the earth’s orbit long before it does eventually explode… In only 5 billion years… Which apparently was a few billion less than 6 year old me planned on living for!

I see how this meme is clearly targeting capitalism and not farmers, and I understand and agree with the point that money is the primary incentive for growing food under capitalism.

But in my opinion the part about letting people starve in order to manufacture scarcity misses the mark. As far as I can tell, the primary reason that so much food goes to waste is liability. No one wants to sell food that could reasonably be constrained as having caused an illness for fear of a lawsuit - if not for that fact, much more food “waste” would actually go to use. Even in the hypothetical absence of liability no overall food scarcity needs to be manufactured because there remains a scarcity of “premium” food.