I used to eat meat. Don't anymore because the arguments against it are just that fucking strong. Basically unless you advocate for religious supremacy it's hard to make a cohesive argument in favor of meat consumption.

Sure, I'll add that.

I would disagree on the grounds that this will functionally just break up the community, which is the best outcome. People will get bored and move on to the next thing, and both reddit and discord will lose.

The big name movies now are so cringeworthy and require zero thought on the part of the viewer. I'd be almost embarrassed to go watch them. The worst part is that I used to watch them because there was just nothing else to see, until one day I was so bored that I walked out of the theatre. To my surprise, I was even approached and given a refund by the manager without asking... maybe they watched it too and understood the pain.

They're fighting a losing battle, but I hope a side effect of it is that new people come in and change both the economics and artistry of Hollywood. Most Hollywood content sits in a very rigid box. It's repetitive, unoriginal, and unappealing. People are encouraged to eat ramen for every meal in order to "make it", simply because far too many of them try (which is partially the result of the "follow your dreams" narrative in America as well). The further down you are, the worse your compensation. Good ideas get missed or thrown out and relegated to dollar theatres all the time.

If this strike goes on long enough that it starts to flush people out, I'm ok with that. Sucks for the people who are going to lose their livelihoods, but for some of them that was an eventuality. Hopefully in the end creators will have more creative freedom and receive more proportional compensation.

Supreme court cases. There are some real doozies, not that anyone irl cares.

When I was a kid my teacher told my parents "she has something that nobody else at her age has, and that's genuine empathy". Now I'm an adult so it's not an applicable compliment anymore, but I still appreciate that comment, and I'd like to think it was true.

Omg I JUST did this, though she was in grade 12. Basically did all the work knowing that she wouldn't graduate if she didn't hand it in. If I'm honest it bothers me because she didn't deserve to graduate, and I don't like the idea of enabling someone's bad habits and she makes a habit of skating by, but I couldn't help myself. Not having a high school diploma is a death knell for so many things, and I think there was a very good chance that she wouldn't have gone back to finish school. I don't know if I made the right decision or if she just needed to learn a life lesson and experience some real consequences, but alas here we are.

Sorry, unfortunately nutrition is more complex than what you can sum up in a few sentences. To answer that though:

• Chicken isn't categorically "unhealthy" in the same way double stuf oreos cooked in lard are - I said in another comment that it's the ultimate neutral food, and if you look at its profile I think that's a fair statement. It's not completely devoid of nutrients, it has a couple of things in significant quantities - phosphorus, selenium, and B3 for example - but overall it's not very nutrient dense. It doesn't have a ton of huge negatives either - a bit of saturated fat, but nothing to write home about. If you're looking at a "Hitler-Hanks" spectrum where the lard oreos are on one end and a spinach chia seed broccoli whatever salad on the other, then chicken is probably right in the middle somewhere. Its D&D alignment is True Neutral. The point I was making in my earlier comment was that "protein" doesn't make a food healthy, and that there's a lot more to it than that, and if people use that mental shortcut they might end up making misinformed decisions.

• The nutritional profile of chicken would be a lot to type out, but you can look at the NCCDB or Cronometer Gold (which uses NCCDB among others) for an elaborate breakdown. Just keep in mind that it doesn't capture everything - it's an amazing tool, but it won't cover the catechins in your tea, for example.

Ultimately though, if you're reading this, let me take this opportunity to encourage you to GO SEE A REGISTERED DIETITIAN. Your insurance will often cover 80+% of your first appointment, but even if they don't it's an amazing investment. You'll live longer, probably spend less on food, and spend a lot less on hospital bills after your first heart attack.

I don't know if this is the case everywhere, but here a lot of chains are switching to doordash partnerships, which is just gross. At this point I'll stop ordering delivery/takeout from any chain that does this because I'm just that disgusted by Doordash and Uber.

On the bright side, if you're in a city, usually there are more than enough delivery co-ops or in-house delivery services available that it's not too painful to ditch delivery apps.

I'm not familiar with the mechanics of this sub obviously, but I'm given to understand that an emergency ascent should have been initiated by this point if everything was fully functional. That probably points to a design flaw - you should always keep those systems as independent of each other as possible so that if one fails, you can fall back on the other. Of course it's possible that they've since ascended and haven't been found, or got stuck, but assuming they haven't that could imply that the sub experienced an insurmountable failure and they're looking for people who are either gone or near-unrescuable.

I would also say that I don't think people SHOULD be risking their lives at this point. We're looking at a case of people who took an informed risk and understood that there was danger associated with the recreational activity they were undertaking. These people either had vast monetary resources and could have consulted the best experts in the world, or had significant prior experience and knowledge. While obviously withholding information interferes with informed consent, and that may or may not have played a role, I don't think this is morally equivalent to rescuing someone from a burning building. There's also simple probability - the odds of rescuing them alive and well aren't good, and to put someone else's life at risk for the off chance that they succeed would be unethical in my opinion.