There’s also NetGuard and rethink that spoof VPN connections to filter traffic. I use the latter to block all outgoing apps except for the ones I allow.

Why keep the child out of eyesight at all in that case? Why stay in a house and not just camp in front of emergency department if one is so afraid of life happening?

Why the pearl clutching over a child in the house? The person even goes as far as arranging possible cover from the in-laws. Even if they didn’t, it is a child and not a ticking time bomb. Obvious idiots getting blind drunk or tripping balls into the next dimension aside, an experienced tripper in a safe environment (ie their home) would be able to handle themselves fine.

I am all for eradicating the mosquito pest but there is no way a study is going to cover all possible impacts of removing them from existence. Anyone claiming to do so is just drunk on hubris.

I like to think that he forgets, keeps trying and then makes a new post about it

That would be sweet but I have never come across such a thing unfortunately!

Lasik isn’t some life saving critical operation that would be provided for if she lived in a leftist European state, you make do with contacts or glasses until you can afford it. The parent is a dumbass too for running to twitter with this but it is an elective.

That’ll teach him to fly illegal flags, hope he gets hard labour otherwise society is doomed.

My friend’s dog was extremely self aware, more than most dogs I would say (not an expert), but would still try and eat its own poop.

I don’t trust LLMs to do tldrs for me and it certainly doesn’t provide a rich nuance or spark discussions like asking a human would do.

(I say that with 7 comments in the thread lol but you get my point I’m sure)

Peer review isn’t an infallible process, it has been shown to be super susceptible to cronyism for example, and even outside of it churns out a vast array of (mostly) useless unreproducible, or sometimes even entirely fraudulent, research. I don’t even have a problem with the former part, research is actually a lot more tinkering and trial based than some set-in-stone endeavour and it certainly wouldn’t hurt the good Ms Sparado to remember that.

I am paraphrasing the post from memory but it came across extremely gatekeepy and condescending with the “but have you conducted double blind trials like I have?” (or sentiments to that effect) as if those are the only valid ways of conducting research. Not even a slight sign of humility in how much researchers and academics have got wrong themselves and maybe to use that as an example in caution when doing your own research.

Right, because professional researchers and academics have never been blinkered by biases or had financial motives to publish certain things or the fact that most published research is unreproducible horseshit. I don’t need a meta-analyses and cross corroborated studies to know something works for me despite all the published reasons that say it shouldn’t (or vice versa). Pathetic attempt at gatekeeping IMO completely forgetting that most research is in fact based on tinkering and trial & error. Professional researchers are not magically immune to human biases and fallacies, case in point thalidomide, trans fats, “heart healthy” seed oils etc etc.

My genuine thanks for taking the time to craft your lovely reply.

How would this reduce drag? Genuinely curious.

If you don’t know then I am not telling you.

The cyclist in the last panel was probably running a red light.

Oh come on now, next you’re going to tell me Daily Star is not a shining beacon of journalistic integrity!

haha let’s use the only parroted phrase you know again and again haha

“only stable democracy” haha that old chestnut, you are deluded if you are ignoring the number of actual democracies in the ME that USA has helped topple or marginalised.