urushiol, isn't it?

I just searched it, urisol is a bladder drug of some kind. I guess you could weaponize it if you really tried.

It's silk, because apparently it's the least likely material to rip out fine hair when sleeping. As for the pillow being trash, it's what I like. I can fold it, double it, squash it, twist it into a bowtie inside of the pillowcase, and it works great and I don't have to feel like I'm messing it up.

eeesh. I have a $70 pillowcase, but the pillow itself is still just trash.

Oh god, the high protein fad is even making its way into hair care! Ruuuun!

Oh, lol, I remember the shampoo with menthol I had. I loved how it actually brought feeling back to my life.

People.

If you're going to tell people to look into the lens of romantic*/companionate (and all the other ones you didn't mention: nonlove/liking/infatuation/empty love/fatuous love/consummate love) you should at least give them some starting points.

• Triangle theory of love: Robert Sternberg (1987, 2006)
• Brain regions; attachment/commitment vs sexual desire: Diamond (2004), Aron et al. (2005), Xu e al. (2011)
• Lust/attraction/attachment, dopamine/serotonin influences: Helen Fisher (2006), Aron et al. (2008),
• More influence of dopamine/serotonin: Ackerman (1994, p. 165)
• Critiques of simplifying love: Fehr (2006)
• Some more neurotransmitters and hormones: Macdonald & Macdonald (2010), Hill et al. (2009), Gouin et al. (2010), Ditzen et al. (2009), Theodoridou et al. (2009)
• Loves sternberg didn't consider: Berscheid (2010), John alan lee (1988),
• Decreases in romantic love: sprecher & regan (1998), Tucker & aron (1993), Gupta & Singh (1982) and the followup D. Myers (1993), Walster & Walster (1978), Abhmetoglu et al (2010), Call et al. (1995), Klussman (2002)
• Non-decreases in love: Acevedo et al. (2011),

Personally, I would really, really recommend the textbook Intimate Relationships by Rowland S. Miller to anyone who is curious about the subject. I had to go pull my edition off of the bookshelf to quickly throw out all the references above.

*because passionate love isn't the category. The proposed idea was the triangle theory of intimacy, passion, and commitment, which led to the eight above categories----

Well fuck that divine being, because squid eyes are better. I've had it up to here with the human god, I'm going to go start worshiping c'thulhu.

I've read some of the policies of my local law enforcement agencies, and some specifically say that shooting at a moving vehicle is stupid. I can't remember an exact quote, but it went something like 'it is more expedient to move out of the way of a charging vehicle...'

I think there's a middle ground where the game 'world' can acknowledge there are political maneuverings happening, while not forcing you to track the shipments of food and goods so you can squeeze nobles who depend on certain economic routes into complying with the king's orders to rally troops for a cause.

Bounty orders style campaigns are fun for a short while, but there's only so many 'go here, kill x, biggest change is the layout of the dungeon and enemy vulnerabilities' before the game sessions all bleed into one long blurry dice roll. That's close to warhammer/battletech/etc territory. I want a real story to go with the campaign, and that necessitates a 'politics' somewhere unless you're playing one of the barbarian/end-of-the-world games where there is no civilization or npcs at all aside from enemies.

But I think we can all agree that the "politics" of motions and passing votes is not what was being addressed by OP.

I was once on waterfox, but there was a weird happening a few years ago where they split it into a classic version and a newer fork, and the difference was something to do with ads and the browser's interaction with them (the extensions that adblockers relied on, I think, from memory). I stayed on the classic for a little while before jumping to librewolf now.