There's "poisoning" from lots of stuff that we wouldn't traditionally classify as "poison", like water [1] or oxygen [2].
I am not a chemist or a doctor, but I think the common adage is "it's the dose that makes the poison". Most stuff is bad for you if you get too much of it.
What? Maybe I was unclear. I'm not saying it's not a poison. It seems like I walked into some entrenched debate and I don't even know what it is. Is it obvious that alcohol has sex specific effects? I didn't know. Is this some kind of culture war thing?
This should have been part of the title, because the abstract says the results are that men handle booze worse than women, which is the opposite in humans.
True, true. What's interesting about this study is that the girl rats were unfazed while the boy rats had hangovers. Do their livers work differently? With humans it's not stark like that.
I think you are mistaken about who you're replying to, but it shouldn't matter.
Someone made a claim. You made a claim that they are specifically wrong and the opposite is true, not that their claim is unproven. I just wanted to know what information informed your claim.
Please familiarize yourself with the guidelines[1] here at HN. This isn't a place for hyperbolic arguments or flame wars. Most people here - especially under posts about scientific research - are just trying to discuss subjects rationally.
I was watching a trial the other day and the prosecutor asks "And did you often see your nephews at your mothers house when you video called her?", and the defendant, a dentists, says "Yep, watching TV, brushing their teeth.[5 second silence] Don't forget to brush your teeth. Really important." The prosecutor smiles, laughs, and says "A little dull humor never hurt, eh?"
I'm not sure your average adult would find "don't be afraid" to be "advice", or some deeply meaningful advice that only a cynic would think was anything less than excellent.
Deadlines exist for a reason; they’re not just random torture. Without them, nothing would get done when things need to get done. But faking pressure with artificial deadlines? That’s a dumb move. It just pisses people off, and rightly so.
It wasn’t America's principles that made it the world leader at the time—it was the fact that, unlike other major powers, it emerged from the world wars largely unscathed. Both peace settlements following the wars were widely criticized as unstable and unlikely to last, and they didn't.
I'd say war became hot again way back when with Vietnam, Afghanistan, and Korea. Proxy wars but wars nonetheless. A major war? Perhaps 2022 was the start of it like you said, that tracks. Hopefully not though.
One difference is that Ukraine is an international, cross-border war of conquest - the kind that was outlawed after WWII and hardly happened since. Vietnam and Korea were civil wars where the US sought no territory. Afghanistan had a different motive, but no conquest was desired.
1. Short term: nothing major because it can't at the moment.
2. Long term: build up a military that is a credible military deterrent to the US, probably abandon NATO if the US doesn't, and form alliances with Canada and the UK.
> Both peace settlements following the wars were widely criticized as unstable and unlikely to last, and they didn't.
Do you mean that "the" post-WWII peace settlement didn't last? It seems to have worked very well.
> It wasn’t America's principles that made it the world leader at the time—it was the fact that, unlike other major powers, it emerged from the world wars largely unscathed.
That certainly played a big role. Also, American principles that created a post-war order based on univeral human rights, the rule of law, and free-market capitalism (including free trade). Those principles led to treatment of the losing powers in that image, rather than in retribution, cruelty or oppression (compare to the USSR in Eastern Europe). In fact, Japan surrendered when they did mainly in order to surrender to the US and not to the USSR - those principles had very significant effects. They also led to the Marshall Plan in Europe.
The principles and the resulting actions created 'soft power' which may be unmatched in history. The general alliance with European powers has lasted over 80 years; the NATO military alliance, of mutual self-defense, has lasted almost as long - has there been anything like it?
People around the world fought and struggled for the vision of American freedom. I've spoken to people from different countries who, even in the first Trump administration, still had the American dream; they still saw the 'city on the hill'.
Beyond a doubt, the US also has done plenty of awful things. But what has distingiushed it, beyond every great power in history, are those principles.
Agreed, but there is far less war of any sort, and - almost miraculously - the near-total elimination of international war. It's a staggering accomplishment.
To say that some war remains is to make perfection the only standard. Let's reduce it even more, but to claim the post-war order hasn't overseen extraordinary peace, freedom and prosperity is ridiculous.
"Make good new things" is the thesis, which is about as vague as the rest of the article. The other one is "good people make good things" which is just naive. Examples: too many to name but since this is a science forum, James Watson and John Von Neumann.
A "good" motivation doesn’t guarantee a good outcome, nor does a bad outcome ensure a good one.
"If you find your child talking to a can of tomato paste, don't worry". I don't think anyone's ever been worried about kids having imaginary friends. So long as the furniture doesn't start moving by itself.
