I mean, I would've thought that story was false, but this makes me rethink that.

Every denial from him is a confession.

Not only do we know from early on that trump has as small penis but that he's insecure about it.

Can you imagine it? The president of the United States, arguably the most powerful and effectual person in the whole world, is so mentally unwell that he is insecure about the size of his penis?

💯🐴🔋(umm, staple)

This is funnier than expected from first glance.

Very cat like.

My favorite part is this:

Funding The authors have no funding to declare, and conducted this research in their spare time.

Most people suck at software engineering.

Plus, there's always the temptation to do it the shitty way and "fix it later" (which never happens).

You pay your technical debt. One way or another.

It's way worse than any gangster.

There is, but banning these substances is a political process not a scientific one. It's definitely true that this should be done by experts and not politicians.

The thing is that it's impossible to set up an experiment to show that something is safe. All you can do is collect more evidence that something is not dangerous. This leads to GRAS.

There's also the additional fact that the dosage makes the poison. There is no substance for which a single molecule can harm you meaningfully.

Roundup is about as toxic as tablesalt. Caffeine is vastly more toxic than that. And Tylenol, well, that simply wouldn't be approved if it were invented today. The ratio between the therapeutic dose and the lethal dose is too small.

Then there's tradition and utility.

Plenty of herbal supplements and even foods are quite dangerous but are sold because they always were and they are "natural".

We can all agree that certain substances don't belong in food - either because they are useless or there's strong evidence they're harmful.

It's the useful ones for which there is some evidence that they may cause issues when given in extreme doses, but a vast number of substances exhibit that behavior. Caffeine and Tylenol, for example. You do not think of these as poisons, but they are. Caffeine is so dangerous that you have to go through a lot of trouble to get it in its pure form.

The fact is that those supstances are certainly more dangerous than the substances in the article, but people are not clamoring to ban them.

And all this complexity is before people's individual interests are involved.

This is why when you compare, say, us and eu food regulations you find substances that are on one list and not the other. One is not a superset of the other.

Anyway, these substances are not "toxic" in really any correct usage of the term, and it's probably very unlikely that a ban will make anyone healthier or happier, despite what you may read about when you Google these substances. Even if you go to the scientific level.

Scientists can have their own agenda. They're still people. Or they can just be bad scientists. Or they can just be churning out papers as fast as possible to increase their prestige.

It used to be that the top paper that came up (it may still be up in the list) when you search glyphosate and bees was a bad paper. It did correctly conclude that glyphosate killed the bees when they put it in the honey, but they had to put so much in there in order to see any effect at all that the concentration was high enough to actually kill aquatic weeds. Next it wasn't properly controlled. Do you know what else will kill bees if put it in their honey? Water. And most definitely caffeine. I assure you a very small amount of caffeine in honey will kill a nest.

It's just a political thing with good optics because who can argue with banning a "toxic" substance.

I'm not sure what you're looking for.

This is a composite satellite image of nighttime light sources.

I can't think of anything unifying other than "satellite image".

First, please define what you mean by socialism. That word encompasses a lot of very different forms of government, even when it's used "correctly", and it's typically not.

The Nazis called themselves socialists, and I'm not moving there.

When many people say socialism, what they mean is capitalist democracy with a strong social safety net, strong government regulation, and highly progressive taxation.

Edit: for the love of god, please do a little bit of reading about socialism before reinforcing my point that this word is used terribly. We won't take the wiki as ultimate truth, but please read. Be better. Read and think first. Comment later.

If you manage professionals and can't tell how well your team is doing unless you see them in person daily, you're a terrible manager.

Definitely. Age limits are difficult. Some people lose it early. Some never do.

Two terms and you're out seems to me to mostly resolve this.

You can even make it just two consecutive terms. I think I'm largely fine with that. At least it's better than the alternative.

Also, lifetime appointment. That was designed at a different time. Scotus should be a (reasonably long) single term. Then you're done with the federal judicial system.

It's really sad too.

One interpretation of the cause of this problem is that vaccines are just too effective. No one has polio, not to mention even chicken pox.

A resurgence of rabies (or, god forbid, small pox) will clear that up real quick.

Then again, too much of this planet have been fed a steady diet of propaganda for most of their adult lives.

I work with radiation. Radiation is hard for lay people to understand, and they are all afraid of it.

The technical language in this article is not helpful for lay people, but it is for me.

You get a much larger dose of a much worse kind of radiation exposure by eating a banana than drinking a liter of this seawater.

And things like Brazil nuts, your basement, living at altitude or near certain kinds of rocks, flying, smoke detectors, or dental X-rays are much, much worse.

Not to mention higher dose medical procedures (CT, PET, SPECT, and radiation therapy). Those, however, are borderline dangerous, but there's a trade-off. Your radiation therapy may lead to secondary cancer down the line, but your primary cancer is killing you right now.

These articles also need to mention that the actual experts -- the people who know what they're doing and understand this -- agree this is the best and safest course of action. I'm not that kind of person, but I know plenty of them. I assure you, they are very cautious.