Hmm, who do believe, the nigh-consensus of pretty much all physicists, or… hector on the Fediverse?
I mean, one has literally millions of scientists and decades, if not centuries of established, peer-reviewed literature… and the other is a random stranger online who believes Charlie Kirk wasn’t shot for being a massive right-wing cunt, but “as the first victim of the war on Iran.”
Geez, that’s a tough one. Couldn’t possibly decide which way I’m leaning.
by shooting matter in one direction and antimatter in another. Like they know.
Not exactly, no.
#The matter- antimatter asymmetry problem
###The Big Bang should have created equal amounts of matter and antimatter. So why is there far more matter than antimatter in the universe?
The Big Bang should have created equal amounts of matter and antimatter in the early universe. But today, everything we see from the smallest life forms on Earth to the largest stellar objects is made almost entirely of matter. Comparatively, there is not much antimatter to be found. Something must have happened to tip the balance. One of the greatest challenges in physics is to figure out what happened to the antimatter, or why we see an asymmetry between matter and antimatter.
Antimatter particles share the same mass as their matter counterparts, but qualities such as electric charge are opposite. The positively charged positron, for example, is the antiparticle to the negatively charged electron. Matter and antimatter particles are always produced as a pair and, if they come in contact, annihilate one another, leaving behind pure energy. During the first fractions of a second of the Big Bang, the hot and dense universe was buzzing with particle-antiparticle pairs popping in and out of existence. If matter and antimatter are created and destroyed together, it seems the universe should contain nothing but leftover energy.
Nevertheless, a tiny portion of matter - about one particle per billion - managed to survive. This is what we see today. In the past few decades, particle-physics experiments have shown that the laws of nature do not apply equally to matter and antimatter. Physicists are keen to discover the reasons why. Researchers have observed spontaneous transformations between particles and their antiparticles, occurring millions of times per second before they decay. Some unknown entity intervening in this process in the early universe could have caused these “oscillating” particles to decay as matter more often than they decayed as antimatter.
https://home.cern/science/physics/matter-antimatter-asymmetry-problem
Tldr just because you didn’t properly listen or the teacher was shit doesn’t mean physicists are as ignorant about the subject as you think. No offense.
I take it to mean how fucked up one is from an moderate dose.
Yeah, because it’s not about what you say, it’s about how you say it. Or in this case, what you don’t say. Mainly that in comparison to alcohol these risks are ridiculously low, and we still deem alcohol to be acceptable in society.
So if this post and the “truth” in it is to be believed, the implication is that the war on drugs is good because it would seek to lower the usage of these implicitly risky substances.
But alcohol is more risky, we tried banning it as well, but had to stop because prohibition creates far more issues than it solves. In the case of alcohol it was so bad it became clear in a matter of a few years that society won’t survive it.
With less risky and less uses substances, the prohibition is still making things worse, but not as apparently, so there’s not as much pressure politically to fix it.
I don’t get your meaning.
I believe you’re thinking “propaganda” means “bullshit.”
They’re not synonyms.
Do you believe that there has been a war on drugs? Do you believe that there has been propaganda in that war? Something like, say, “reefer madness”? Do you think that universities are ideologically pure institutions with no ties anywhere?
A scientist may check on a thing just because “yeah, lets do science”. But that thing they’re checking may be something someone wants to use to imply that a position they hold on something — ideologically — is the correct one.
Imagine that I’m a billionaire, no limit on my funds. Do you think it would be impossible for me to get someone to study whether too much water is bad for you? Obviously not. Could I then pay the press (or use some presshouses I would own as a billionaire with no fund limits) to circulate the study with dubious headlines which imply water is bad for you? Ofc I could.
Would it be factually wrong? Nope. It would just be like “if you drink too much water without any salts in it, you die, basic fact of medicine”, which is true. But ofc you’d understand that my implication isn’t about making people aware that drinking 10l of distilled water everyday without eating even a morsel of food is bad, obviously.
Propaganda isn’t just someone writing straight up lies and trying to make you believe it.
It’s implication and eliciting feelings.
“You want to know what this was really all about?” he asked with the bluntness of a man who, after public disgrace and a stretch in federal prison, had little left to protect. “The Nixon campaign in 1968, and the Nixon White House after that, had two enemies: the antiwar left and black people. You understand what I’m saying? We knew we couldn’t make it illegal to be either against the war or black, but by getting the public to associate the hippies with marijuana and blacks with heroin, and then criminalizing both heavily, we could disrupt those communities. We could arrest their leaders, raid their homes, break up their meetings, and vilify them night after night on the evening news. Did we know we were lying about the drugs? Of course we did.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Ehrlichman#Drug_war_quote
And alcohol is still far worse and people use it in moderation as well.
Anyone spreading drug war propaganda in 2026 deserves to have their naive worldview shat on.
More drug war propaganda zZzzz
Anyone bother to copypaste the articles content?
I ain’t accepting nor paying.
Yes yes, ofc they “controlled for”. It’s always the same argument with these studies. And you know it isn’t remotely enough so you appeal to authority by saying “reputable universities and institutions”, as if there hasn’t been literally hundreds of billions put into anti-cannabis research and there’s still only massively vague correlations instead of being able to show a single causation. Unlike with alcohol, which you can clearly demonstrate a sudden onset psychosis from pretty much anyone as long as you’re giving them something above say 8% ABV for a few hours on an empty stomach.
Yet you’ll also be able to find millions of people smoking weed daily without issues. You can’t say that for alcohol. Yet the implication is still one of “we can’t legalise more drugs” as if legalising made people less aware of the risks and less likely to abuse those substances, when we *know" it doesn’t. It actually does the opposite. Prohibition increases abuse and associated risks.
But hey, let’s spend another day arguing about how theres definitely a “link” between cannabis use and mental health disorders, even though not a single person can say what the link is how it forms or why.
Last time I did it I ended up having to read and Google all sorts of “reputable institutions” and once I did find the material, turns out even though they claimed to have controlled for all of those aspects, every single cannabis user was from a lower socioeconomic group than the control groups, which were in areas which were distinctly higher in average socioeconomic class. Then they just claimed that they had “controlled”. They clearly hadn’t. They had done the exact opposite.
Edit and just to make it clear, ofc any substance use has risks. Caffeine moreso than cannabis, for real.
Well last time I bought anything was in like 2011 and just knew they rocked the brands FDF uses as well. Jalas Phantom Drylock are the boots I talked about.
They’re not just their own brand. They sell various brands. A lot are Finnish though.
I myself enjoyed the drylock version of the boots I had in the military. Unfortunately the drylock membrane made their care harder / more expensive and I was a lazy cunt and they got ruined much before they should’ve.
Idk if Hedgren brand does clothing, they do backpacks at least, and idk about their quality nowadays, but the Hedgrem backpack my mom bought me in the early 90’s is still serving me extremely well. It doesn’t look outdated either, and I’ve not been careful with it in the slightest in the past 30 years or so.
I think that was 2013 Proton M launch.
I tried looking up this video and at first AI kept adamantly demanding this is the proton m launch. But then a new convo and suddenly it agrees this is prolly 28 November ICBM test.
But yeah the 2013 proton m spiraled hard
You skped a few letters in the title. Not you the person posting it on Lemmy, but the person who originally wrote the piece.
To further add to your argument, the last execution during peacetime in Finland was in 1825.
The last execution was indeed by firing squad in 1943, but that was still wartime, and the last two executed were for treason and the other for six murders. Capital punishment during wartime was on the books until early 70’s.
I’m thinking there’s enough room to take out your snake from the side without loosening the entire thing, then when you’re done, if necessary, give a bit of a tug to tighten things back up.
And if you have to go nr 2 or you’re a lady with the same garments, then I assume you just release the flap, go about your business and reattach it? Doesn’t seem too cumbersome. A flap between your legs which you tuck into your belt.
I imagine that the garments nature and way of being bound wouldn’t definitely lend itself to the style of peeing where you just grab the snake out and have a whizz before putting it back and maybe fixing the position of the flap a bit.
Honestly properly fitting jeans and boxers seems like more of a hassle than this garment.
Although I do hear the toga was a bitch to use. But I’d probably just rock a tunic.
Compared to you? Yes, I am.
If I had 1€ for everytime some cognitively limited champ says “well the scientists don’t know everything”, I’d have enough to buy a sufficient quantity of alcohol to forget I ever heard such bs.
That’s the core of science. Knowing you don’t know everything. If at any point someone in fact says they know everything, they’ve gone from a scientist to a religious lunatic.
No-one gives a fuck what you think. That’s why we read CERN and not your comments when we wish to stay informed on what’s going on in physics.