!mediashare@lemmy.world

That’s why you need prebiotics, duh.

By your logic, if you’re a good person but you spend your disposable income on a form of recreation that inefficiently brings positivity to the world, you deserve to be ridiculed and your suffering is justly celebrated.

“Bro, do you know what really sucks? Not having best-in-class third-party audited end-to-end encryption so nobody ever finds out about all the shit we’re about to get up to. Like, do you even wanna do drugs, bro?”

You could scan it and that would easily be the fastest way to actually deal with they problem, minified or not.

hyperbole
hī-pûr′bə-lē
noun
A figure of speech in which exaggeration is used for emphasis or effect, as in I could sleep for a year or This book weighs a ton.

I guess they aren’t aware all Muslims are fanatics. /s

Late to reply, but generally Lemmy users are advanced/veteran Reddit users, and advanced Reddit users more or less share a pool of common knowledge based on topics that often come up or were significant, etc. Aspartame is up there with things like fluoride in the water supply in terms of notoriety. Not saying people agree one way or the other, but it should at least be well known that it’s controversial.

Even if the value of money goes up, it’s by a paltry 1-2% and it still wouldn’t seem to make sense to hoard rather than invest, unless I’m missing something. In what scenario would any rich person just sit on their money? Likewise, the impact of 2% deflation on a bank loan is well within the variance in rates we see today, and I imagine in such an economy the rates would be adjusted somewhat to compensate.

Simply put, the difference between an inflating vs deflating currency doesn’t seem enough to drastically alter people’s behavior. In the short to medium term it seems almost a non-issue, at least for regular people, and in the long term people won’t get fucked out of their life savings. I imagine the vast majority of the population doesn’t invest their money. Which policy would they prefer?

Sadly, the humanitarian concern of Ukraine’s use of cluster bombs is not the most important.

The real issue is why we’re sending Ukraine cluster bombs in the first place.

We’re not doing it as part of some strategy or for some kind of tactical advantage. We’re doing it because we don’t have anything else left to send them. We’ve run out of modern munitions and won’t be getting much more anytime soon. That’s why we’re sending Ukraine cluster bombs.

And the reason this article exists is because Ukraine is almost certainly not using them effectively, but they want to convince us otherwise. Cluster bombs don’t do shit to tanks or buildings. They were designed for targeting people hiding in the jungle. Why would anyone feel the need to write an article saying, “Hey, btw, these weapons you paid for are definitely working out really well. They’re super good at destroying Russians, for sure!”? I suspect it’s because they’re doing jack shit.

I think he was just explaining what the other person meant. You’re inferring or assuming a subtext of disagreement or antagonism that I’m just not seeing.

For money laundering?

I would add to the extant conversation by saying that many food ingredients in powdered/granular form are prone to clumping (usually with no ill effect other than inconvenience), and are prevented from doing so by the addition of various anti-caking agents. I can’t speak to the food safety of those agents, but personally, I’d rather deal with the clumps.

“Comfortable Dragon”

You’re knowledgeable and capable enough to sign up for Lemmy, but you don’t know aspartame is bad?