PSA: If you're not wearing a mask, you should be. A good one.

N95 masks are not the be-all or end-all for COVID-19 protection. There are even better options out there, namely P100s. Here's a comparison.

- N95s block 95% of particles, AKA they let thru 5%.
- P100s block 99.97% of particles, AKA they let thru 0.03%.

5% is ~167X greater than 0.03%. In other words, P100s provide ~167X better protection than N95s.

They aren't expensive or hard to get, either. More details in next reply.

Need to make supper, but forgot to buy groceries so you're stuck with boxed macaroni and cheese (eg: Kraft Dinner)?

Here's how to make it actually taste good:

Add heaps of (fresh or dried, either works) garlic & oregano, plus a bit of cayenne pepper.

You're welcome.

Herbs and spices can, all by themselves, turn a boring/bland meal into a delicious one.

Conspiracy theorists in a nutshell:

Well, *I* thought it was funny.

That might've just been sleep deprivation and - as I've discovered since - migraine prodrome making me find things funnier than I should, though.

I feel so incredibly bad for people who suffer from cluster headaches.

I get classic migraines (albeit admittedly unusually bad ones) once or twice a year on average. I'm glad they're so rare, because I find them utterly unbearable.

Cluster headache sufferers get them *VERY often* by comparison, and cluster headaches are supposed to be even MORE painful than migraines.

NGL if I suffered from cluster headaches, there's no way I'd be able to take it. I have no idea how they manage.

Actually, come to think of it, it'd be funnier to write "LIVE BAIT" instead 🤣

I literally fell on my ass laughing shortly after I thought of that one.

I would find it highly amusing to go around with a paint marker, vandalizing "Donald Trump For President" signs (probably mostly random lawn signs) by crossing out the word "President" and writing - in big, bold letters - "SOAP".

I think just maybe I might have a little bit of a dark sense of humour... 😁

Keep in mind I skipped a bunch of the steps (and made it less specific) because it would've been prohibitively verbose/long otherwise.

The primary weak point, if you could even call it that, in the argument (which I outlined as a bastardized form of "reductio ad absurdum") is that it assumes that rational self-interest entails maximally serving the biological imperative.

However, since the biological imperative is as a matter of fact the *objective* goal of all living things, I think it works.

Inference II: Objectivism therefore encourages minimizing competition.

The problem:

Minimizing competition (for mates) would entail minimizing the number of reproductively capable individuals of the same species+sex, & (for resources) would entail minimizing the # of (most) macroscopic non-photosynthetic organisms.

In other words, Rand's "Objectivism" would encourage each individual to - if feasible - sterilize or kill all other individuals of the same sex & eliminate most wildlife.

Yikes 🤯

Premise IV: Competition can be split into two subsets: competition for mates and competition for resources (ie food/water). Any reproductively capable organism of the same species and same sex can be considered a competitor for mates; most other macroscopic non-photosynthetic organisms can be considered competitors for resources.

Now for the fun part.

Inference I (see PII/PIII): Rational self-interest would dictate that one minimize competition inasmuch as it is possible to do so.

An Informal Proof That Ayn Rand Was A Dipshit & "Objectivism" Has Always Been Totally Out To Lunch:

Premise I: Objectivism posits that rational self-interest is the highest goal one could ever aspire to serve.

Premise II: Rational self-interest includes the biological imperative - in other words maximizing the proliferation & survival of one's genetic code.

Premise III: The proliferation & survival of one's genetic code is inhibited/threatened by competition.

[continues]

Hmm... something's not quite right here...

https://www.google.ca/search?q=askew

/nosanitize

You know, it's unfortunate that Iran (centuries ago the Sassanid Empire, and before that the Achaemenid Empire) fell to the Arabs/Muslims & had much (perhaps most?) of its native culture/beliefs destroyed.

If that hadn't happened, perhaps they might be in a better place (not an insane terroristic theocracy) today?

Though come to think of it, since it's a pretty big change & so long ago, that surely would've radically changed the path of world history... so it's hard to say with any certainty.

Something most people probably don't realize:

Humans - and in fact, all living things - are chaotic in nature (in a very technical sense; see chaos theory): a small difference in initial conditions can produce an enormous difference in outcomes.

You can see that very clearly in an abstract sense by the fact that adding a very, very small amount of (insert drug here) can vastly & dramatically change what you do, where you end up, and what shape your body ends up in.

Q: Why did a couple who were looking to sell their home get upset when they found out their house's online ad was getting a lot of views?

A: The real estate agent told them they'd get more money for their house and they'd have an easier time selling if interest rates were low.

I kinda feel like the whole "pirates taking shipping vessels hostage" issue could be pretty easily resolved with defensive use of (even primitive) chemical weapons.

Eg: if a cargo ship were to start dumping chlorine gas once the pirates got relatively close, said pirates should be incapacitated VERY quickly - & if they survived I doubt they'd ever want to try piracy again. Chlorine is heavier than air & floats on top of water; pirate boats are tiny and don't sit very high above the water line.

They may set out to accomplish roughly the same thing, but that does NOT make them ethically equivalent.

Here's an analogy:

If you're trying to become the leader of a country, one way to do that is to kill everyone who stands in your way... & another is to persuade them you're the right person for the job.

Both routes accomplish roughly the same thing - but killing everyone who opposes you is *clearly unethical*, while there's no inherent ethical issue with persuading people to let you lead.