I’m a little shakey on the details but I think it has more to do with the extra bone mass in relation to the way the jaw functions. It acts more like a shock absorbing bumper than a lever.
Other animals that get punched there tend to take that blow more to the throat, which is a bit more problatic
I read somewhere sometime ago that the theory that makes the most sense is that we evolved chins to take a punch, which animals besides our immediate evolutionary relatives do not do.
So we evolved chins as an evolutionary advantage over our immediate evolutionary relatives who would logically be competing for the same resources.
You can die of cirrhosis from drinking too much for too long, but it’s still culturally held as a stress reliever. You can die from diabetes if you eat too much sugar for too long, but it’s still sold to children as edible happiness. Hell, you can die slowly and painfully from taking too much Tylenol, but it’s still the world’s most popular painkiller by far.
Too much of anything kills eventually. That doesn’t bare any significance to whether or not it’s good for stress in some amount.
Yes. Our country is run by geriatrics who, among other things related to modern society, legislate on technology they don’t understand. We need younger members with more flexible minds who have at least spent some part of their younger lives dealing with problems we have a modern variation of today.
But especially SCOTUS members. Any kind of term limit on them would be better than what we have.
I was talking about people who know me and interpret autistic behavior as a sign of danger.
You came into a conversation about unknown men being an implicit danger to women, a subject that’s a title post and 3 comments deep, to talk about how people treat you like that because of something completely different, not clarify that you’re talking about something completely different, and then you’re wondering why I’m thinking you’re talking about the subject of the post?
I’m willing to chalk this up to a misunderstanding, but your insistence that I’m a clown for defending a point that you made no indication wasn’t what you were even talking about until now has left me completely unwilling to talk to you further.
This is pointless. Goodnight.
This concept isn’t hard to understand and every time someone has a problem with it it’s always some variation of being personally offended because they think someone else’s safety is actually about them.
You’re not different. I didn’t ascribe your position, you literally said you’re insulted because you’ve never done anything to justify that behavior.
That’s a variation of making it about you because you don’t feel like you should be lumped in with other men, even though in the situations this happens in it’s because the other person doesn’t know you.
You’re the exact type of person I was talking about with the exact point the last 5 have all made. I thought it might be sarcasm because you can’t seriously be trying to assert the same thing they all did on a comment calling them all out for refusing to get it, but here we are.
Calling me a clown is a cheap cop out to deflect from the fact that your feelings are hurt. Go bait someone else.
We’re all pointless opinions here on the world wide web, bucko.
That being said, I hate your pointless opinion with every fiber of my being and I’m fully prepared to sit at my computer and argue about it through the wee hours of the morning
So is this sarcasm or do you really not understand that it isn’t your right to decide what other people discern as safe vs unsafe?
Because if it’s not sarcasm, I’m really not in the mood to have a 6th argument with another person whose entire position boils down to “well it hurts my feelings because not all men are bad”
There’s a similar concept that has sprung up in discission around here about how basically all women have a sense of danger around men they don’t know or the ones obviously being creepy.
Way too many people here think that without a form of physical assault involved, taking measures to distance yourself from someone you get a bad feeling about is sexism and as bad as racism because not all men are bad.
Like, if I’m walking down a sidewalk and the person walking towards me decides to cross the street because I’m a man, I get it. It’s not hard to grasp that some people don’t want to be close to someone who might objectify them.
But I’ve been in probably 5 separate arguments on lemmy about how women who do that are misandrist garbage because every man deserves a shot and you should always give men the benefit of the doubt.
There’s definitely a higher concentration of man-centric conversation here.
most of the time for no reason at all
Not for no reason. It’s a form of control. If you genuinely believe that the opposing party is going to bring the country to ruin, you’re a lot less likely to consider their position in politics.
Look at the affordable care act. Conservatives hated/hate it because “obamacare” was portrayed as giving free health care to the lazy poor that you have to pay for as a hard working conservative. When asked if we should repeal Obamacare, conservatives poll something crazy like 95% yes, simply because it’s a bad word they learned.
Many of those conservatives have health care through the ACA and get mad when Republicans take it away because they need it. Those same conservatives mostly aren’t even aware that what they have is literally obamacare.
It’s control all the way down.
Politics is fundamentally different for conservatives. They have to have someone to hate. It’s drilled into them by their media outlets.
The tactic is a form of fear based control that conservative media has been working on since Nixon, and made into effect with the birth of Fox News in 1996.
Seriously. Nixon’s think tank conceived the conservative media outlet as a catch-all, exclusive source of news that as a primary function would steer conservatives to not trust other news sources.
They did this because they did not want another Watergate, where conservatives turned against Nixon because of hard evidence laid out by popular unbiased news, which at the time conservatives still were informed by.
The Frankenstein’s monster of a party that that tactic has turned conservatives into requires manufactured rage to fuel the fire. If the outrage ever simmers, you begin to see smarter conservatives recognizing what their party has become and it begins to fall apart.
So there’s your answer. It’s because the hate is necessary to continue the control. If you don’t believe me, turn on Fox news. There’s always the manufactured rage-of-the-day filling the air time.
It’s not just a data mining cash grab. It’s a bigger cash grab than that. If they had required the account link from the beginning they would not have sold the game in countries where you can’t get a PlayStation account.
They clearly waited until the hype from the game settled in before they made this requirement so that they could make all of the money from the countries they don’t service.
That way they could squeeze a little extra out of the player base by mining their data long enough later that players can’t get a refund. Doesn’t matter to them that they’re forcing players in half the geological world to quit.
Truly despicable. They should be forced to issue refunds to players they are effectively kicking from the game, but something tells me nothing is going to happen.
That’d at least be something. But republicans in my state actually are cartoonishly evil and that part is staying in so one senator can justify abusing some kids.
Is this a game that really needs new quests? It’s already so goddamn long if you’re a completionist.
So in theory a baseline maintenance fee could solve this. You just make it so the metered charge counts against that fee until it’s covered, so the people who don’t have alternate sources of electricity aren’t affected.
I think the “capitalism” part comes around because most electric grids (in the US) are privately owned and actively try to turn a profit. For those companies, the fact that some people use solar panels will just become an excuse to charge everyone a fee.
I start almost every comment I make on those instances with
I know this will net me a ban
to play a bit of reverse psychology with the mods there, who don’t touch my comments when the denizens there inevitablely say
Oh yeah you think you’re so smart well we don’t ban opposing opinions unlike some places
And the mods there have their hands tied because banning me would prove their own guys wrong.
It’s worked pretty well so far.
The bottom line is that hygiene is subjective. If a person feels that they need to shave because they come off as cleaner, that’s all it takes to consider it hygiene.
It’s no different from shaving your legs or face.
My mind is blown. This is very well written. Thank you