Have you thought to see what other things are in the same category (IARC 2B) before contributing to the misinformation? It includes such "noxious" things as aloe vera and working as a carpenter or dry cleaner. It's basically meaningless other than "there is a small body of weak evidence suggesting it may have some effect on cancer and we think there should be more research".
also, telling someone they should feel bad and stupid (along with the other language you used) is a bit rough for a discussion on artificial sweeteners
Nope, sorry. If you're a moron contributing to health misinformation you deserve the abuse you get. Too many good people died because of them - I don't even care if you're stupid or malicious anymore, I have no patience for either.
I have particular contempt for OP jUsT aSkInG qUeStIoNs with their "Make of that what you will". It's cowardly, slimy and shameful - if you're going to be an idiot at least have the conviction to stand by it.
There’s still some really quite noxious chemicals that are perfectly legal to put in food. My son’s A-level chemistry teacher saw him drinking the same brand of squash every day and commented “You drink a lot of that. Are you sure there’s no aspartame in it? There’s no way I would deliberately put aspartame inside my body.” Make of that what you will.
"You're a moron if you take medical advice from someone whose only qualification is an undergraduate degree in chemistry" is what I make of that.
Aspartame is the most studied food additive of the past 40 years and you should feel bad and stupid for parroting misinformation about it being "noxious". Saying something moronic like that undermines anything else you say.
I believe it is demonstrable that social science as a field has been a victim of intense ideological capture
"I don't like how facts hurt my feelings so I choose to ignore them"
What a truly fascinating way to view the world.
If you actually believe that, surely you're not going far enough though? You can follow your logic to its conclusion:
People need water that isn’t full of whatever runoff dupont feels like dumping in 10 miles up the river
Actually, some people have no water at all. We should literally expend no effort into cleaning up water until every single human on the planet has access to some form of water.
People need shelter that doesn’t make them unable to afford food.
Actually, some people can afford neither food or shelter, and so we should not expend any effort in providing them with shelter until every single human on the planet has access to food.
It's almost like we're a complex society that can address more than one societal issue at a given point.
That doesn’t scream “easy” to me.
I can't tell if you're taking the piss or you genuinely think 10 seconds of effort is "hard".
If anything, I think LJ missed a trick by not having the option of doing a double subscription (so £3.99), and saying the extra £2 gets split between the instances, weighted by the time you spend time on them.
I think I might have felt differently at a stage of my life where I didn't have nearly as much disposable income as I do now.
Over the past few years, I've adopted the attitude of trying my hardest to pay for the things that I would be genuinely disappointed if they went away.
I have system-wide ad block, so the $20 or whatever for Sync actually bought me nothing other than the knowledge that if LJ decides to pack up Sync and go and work for a FAANG instead, I don't need to feel guilty.
This attitude would be unrecognisable to my younger self.
not wanting to pay a subscription fee
It's a one-time $20. It's literally in the meme were both commenting on.
Maybe wherever you live. In first world countries, it's fairly straightforward.
There is seemingly no easy way to synchronise settings over accounts. This makes initial setup with multiple accounts frustrating, and future changes a little annoying.
Set up account -> Backup -> Switch to new account -> Restore
Thank god we've got people like you to incessantly whine about it and show how little they care by commenting about how they don't care.
Not at all more obnoxious than the original post.
supreme court legislation
The supreme court does not legislate. No court of any kind should be legislating. That's the damn problem.
The reason the US is in the position it's in is because while the rest of the world was going through its bodily autonomy revolution and democratically legislating abortion access, the US relied on a judicial decision (without a lawmaker being involved) based on a fragile foundation of "right to privacy".
It it as utterly terrifying as it looks too an outsider?
Ah, so it's, like, a brutalist, function over form preference?
From your perspective - yes, exactly that and I think that's probably the best way you can understand it.
From my perspective, the old.reddit.com UI (with RES) is possibly the most beautifully designed web page I've ever encountered. I certainly couldn't have used it almost daily for the past 12 years if that wasn't the case.
I can focus on content much better when the UI is breathing. And I prefer clients that have images already expanded, to save me the clicks.
I can understand and respect that while thinking you're insane. If I had to guess, your formative experience with technology was via touch screens and I think that would go a long way to explaining your preferences.
For me, post uniformity is important. It feels like I'm in control of the experience and I'm browsing rather than having things shoved in my face. I have Imagus installed so I only need to hover over a link to see the picture and so I can just look at the pictures I'm interested in - one at a time.
Full disclosure - my earliest experiences in the Internet were bulletin boards and that probably had a formative part in my preferences. I'm also probably undiagnosed something.
Information density and minimal whitespace. Can't stand this trend of only using the middle third of the screen.
We could, if we wanted, literally just decide
This is basically what it comes down to.
Unless you're worried about Charlie sailing to France to raise a mercenary army, we can assume he'll do exactly what he's told.
Even if the Crown Estate was his personal property (which it isn't) - parliament is sovereign and there's more of us than him. We could just take it from him.
God, I hope long enough to see a Great British Republic.
I swear every monarchy-loving flag-shagger bases their entire personality off the same 4 minute, 12-year-old poorly researched youtube video.
No, Charlie Boy would not get to keep the Crown Estate were we to evict him.
In that you know to avoid the weirdo in the corner wearing a "Ask me why I know morse code" t-shirt at the party?
Tl;dr Italy invented the pizza but the US invented the pizzeria.