Fuckin called it.

Removed by mod

Content warnings seem to be useless or add stress

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/21677026231186625

Well, this is all very subjective. Idk what you do for a living, but there are massive differences between fact to fact communication and IM/email.

To say it’s outdated is just insane and flat wrong.

Not quite, this has happened before

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Video_game_crash_of_1983

The ol’ double tap never fails

I cannot tell if you are being serious or just having fun with buzzwords

The downside to that is the epoxy would only be surface level. You’d want to fill any cracks/checks entirely, and pouring it into the hole or flooding the whole slab would be the best way to ensure that

I didn’t watch this the whole way through, but it might help you: https://youtu.be/E_d9hK20C94?si=TOh87hZYK79tpUAl

Seriously, fuck off with the AI shit. At best it’s intelligent regex. And “intelligence” here means a specific thing.

Id guess the alternative is to pour them one at a time? If you don’t want to flood it but you want the checks filled, that’s really the only other option, isn’t it?

But the iceberg won…

What is dystopian about this?

Well this is just a silly take. Have you not watched the state of the unions during bidens presidency? He was a decent politician. That includes speeches.

What? Dude I’m voting for the D candidate no matter what. I’m just saying mrs Harris isn’t a strong candidate and has never been.

Fuck man lol

Lol or not, so we forget 2016? Her whole campaign run?

For those who wish to re learn: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kamala_Harris_2020_presidential_campaign

Nah, she’s never been a contender. Unless the DNC rallies behind her and the rest of us agree, she will be a small blip on the radar as she was before being put into the VP spot

Lol right? Go read the thread for the fuckin journey I was on to see how silly it gets

My arguments have been good faith, have directly addressed not only your rebuttals but also your initial assertion.

I don’t think you’ve read through your links too well. (There will be some edits since I’m on my phone and can’t compose this at once)

Number 1:

A global recommendation about consumption of Cantonese-style salted fish has not been made, as this type of fish is consumed only in specific parts of the world. Nevertheless, the Panel advises that it’s best not to consume Cantonese-style salted fish.

A global recommendation about consumption of foods preserved by salting has not been made as these types of food are mostly consumed only in Asia. Nevertheless, the Panel advises that it’s best not to consume foods preserved by salting.

There is also other evidence on preservation and processing of foods that is limited (either in amount or by methodological flaws), but is suggestive of an increased risk of some cancers. Further research is required, and the Panel has not used this evidence to make recommendations.

Numba 2, if you follow their cancer link, it leads to this:

Causes of stomach cancer

Some factors that can increase your risk of stomach cancer include:

smoking tobacco

being over 60

infection with the bacteria Helicobacter pylori

a diet high in smoked, pickled and salted foods and low in fresh fruit and vegetables …

Notice how the ‘low fruits and veggies’ is left out of the initial claim

Your last source is the most interesting and compelling and should have been your first go-to since it’s the strongest, but even they say

A high-salt intake strips the lining of the stomach and may make infection with H. pylori more likely or may exacerbate the infection. Salting, pickling and smoking are traditionally popular ways of preparing food in Japan and some parts of Asia. In addition to salt intake, cigarette smoking and low consumption of fruit and vegetables increase the risk of stomach cancer. However, it is not known whether it is specifically the salt in these foods or a combination of salt and other chemicals that can cause cancer.

Healthy vs unhealthy, I’m not a doctor. Salt certainly isn’t a carcinogen. Your source and original view was using that as a buzz word. Their sources for making the claim don’t say that though.

Re: 2 comments, you wouldn’t respond to edits either, so I thought separate threads of separate thoughs would be easier for you. The second comments have arguably stronger and better views anyway since they address the foundation of your arguments instead of how you are trying to shift things. Watching how you respond, or which you respond to is telling

EDIT IN CASE YOU MISS IT: for example, I mentioned potatoes. Instead of addressing anything I said, you called me out about talking about non meat, while you had said food. Was this a misunderstanding on my part? Your part?