These are real, current legs. The front 2 of the insect norm of 6

I absolutely agree that there should be a official name. My problem with birds is that there are 2 official names. The American Ornithological Society approves both of them (kind of). One is Latin/Greek/whatever in Genus species format - that is the one for science literature and taxonomy. The other is in English and silly in my opinion because that’s where people will use it to say nonsense like there is no such thing as a seagull.

There are weirdly rigid common names around birds. There is a whole thing about renaming them right now. They are essentially regulated terms that low level pedants respect. They are the same types of people who would correct you for calling Frankenstein’s monster ‘Frankenstein’.

The plant community is better. You could call a “sunflower” a “tall flower” and nobody would care. You might get a “oh, I’ve never heard that one” but never “there’s no such thing as a ‘tall flower.’” They just fall back to the scientific names when clarity is important.

IMO common names should just be useful. I will call any gull a seagull when talking to non-bird people because that is a term that is commonly understood and how effective communication works.

Wait. Was I not supposed to be talking about this? Next you’re going to tell me that sewage treatment is an innapropriate dinner party topic.

I think the point is that there isn’t a good enough reason to put internet in a car that negates the risk of it.

It is like adding lead to food. It’s a cheap sweetener with no calories. You can argue that cheap sweeteners aren’t important to you, but I don’t think you can argue that it isn’t a good reason. It just isn’t a good enough reason to negate the risk.

Look up “pink tax” and “gender pay gap”.

Are you using https? On mine the app doesn’t allow just http.

Am I really bathing if I’m using water I cannot drink?

Yes, drinking water is cleaned to the point that it will not make you sick to drink assuming a normal immune system. That is extreme over kill for bathing (and toilets, laundry, etc). The only reason we use drinking water for everything is because infrastructure is expensive and laying non-potable water pipes would cost tons.

Nice work on the write up! It is hard sorting things out when they’re half true. For me, drinking water is especially important to get the fact straight on because of how bad it can go if the system fails. It would be silly to disregard anyone saying water wasn’t up to a safe standard, but separating things I would care about out from the fluoride and chlorine background noise is tricky. Thanks for the deeper dive!

Just generally, you can get a report of your municipal water testing. The biggest safety variable that I would be worried about testing at home for is lead in the pipes between me and the treatment plant. That includes my house/building and the municipal pipes.

Now taste, that’s a to each their own situation. Sulfury water is my limit for sure. No thanks!

I think hey are talking about the chloramine that Minneapolis uses to disinfect. It is more stable and isn’t just chlorine, so it would be in a “combined” result. The levels are page three of this report https://www2.minneapolismn.gov/media/content-assets/www2-documents/residents/2022-Consumer-Confidence-Report-FINAL.pdf It looks like 2023 isn’t posted yet, but I doubt it changes much year to year.

Are you talking about using chloramine in disinfection? I think conflating pool water and drinking water standards is a bit of a mistake. Things get added to pools from people’s bodies after chlorination that cause weird combined results. Drinking water is disinfected (chlorinated) as a final step. I would object to my municipality using chloramine, but not because I wouldn’t drink it.

Me talking at dinner: “Will you pass me the peas?” Cut to 5 people confused about whether I mean just one of them or if I want the whole table to all hand me the peas.

I get why they/them can be confusing because of the plural thing, but we are used to a quirky language. With a little practice, the tone and context clear up nearly all confusion. The rest is as easy or hard as what we have to do with an ambiguous “you.”

PS Sorry to the “yous/yous guys” people. I am not trying to turn a blind eye to you obviously superior usage. It just really ruins my point.

Their point is that if plants can suffer, and assuming we still want to eat, less plants die or are maimed on a vegan diet than on an omnivorous diet because livestock eats plants too and the conversion to meat is inefficient.

That means vegan diet is the way for less plant suffering even though you eat them directly. In fact it is because you would eat them directly.

Came here to say this too

No kind of expert on the idiomatic use, but the literal translation makes it feel like the monkey is going after something without a plan for where to land. I would expect it to indicate impulsivity

It is a chain (66ft) and 10 chains 660ft. They are historically important units for land surveying (and relevant today because of that). The measurement is nonsense, but the graph makes sense because an acre can be defined as 1 chain by 10 chains or 66ftx660ft=4356sqft

Thanks! It does work for predictive text and correcting while typing, but doesn’t check for misspellings in typed text. Probably good enough

Interesting, it doesn’t “spell check”, but it does suggest words from its own dictionary for predictive text. Maybe I don’t need the checking if I can just look at predicted spellings. Thanks for the thought.

Definitely agree