I want to know how someone figured this out. Were they accidentally playing it at the same time or just noticed something was rhythmic and then tried different songs?

OP’s account has no posts but three spamming this “IQ testing” site

Not the person you are replying to but https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darknet_market

Not OP, but as someone who was at one point excited by the potential of crypto, the ecosystem has moved more and more towards what it claimed to stand against initially

It’s supposed to be decentralized, but things like mining pools have lead to heavy amounts of centralization in block production. If we look at Bitcoin, for an example, we see that over 51% of block production is controlled by just two mining pools. That’s not limited to just Proof of Work mining either. Proof of stake sees centralization in staking pools as well. That’s only just looking at one aspect of the network

It has also not really been seen as a currency. People’s view of it as an “investment” which have the opposite qualities you really want to see. People are encouraged to hold it and never let go, meaning they won’t want to spend it which is adverse to its use as a currency. This has also lead to it being incorporated and dominated by the very financial systems it was initially supposed to move away from

I don’t want to type out an essay, but I could keep going on in other ways that’s not really lived up to its promises.

There are perceptional reasons why it may feel like milk worked better such as it being cooled vs using room temperature water. Or from being the second thing used. Or from various different factors

But the research above suggests it doesn’t do as much as people think it does

The infection risks are not the same. Milk has stuff in it that microbes like for growing where water doesn’t have nearly all that. Other stuff can enter inside. The eye infection pathway is concerning especially right now when bird flu seems to enter that way and is in large quatities of dairy milk. Not all pasturization methods are certain to actually remove it (i.e flash pasturization might not)

Edit: A minor point to clarify, capsaicin is in pepper spray but not tear gas. They often do get conflated but they are different

I would think that alcohol on the eyes wouldn’t do too many good things to them, however

To be fair my suspicious is steam deck users likely make up a larger chunk of recent desktop Linux growth and aren’t (as) likely to go to typical linux spaces online. Though since this is based on browser data, I also wonder how many steam deck users are actually browsing the web on them, so perhaps that my be a bad assumption on my part

That war ended in 2022 though I’d agree it should have received more global news coverage and such

The Tigray War[b] was an armed conflict that lasted from 3 November 2020[a] to 3 November 2022.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tigray_War

Haha, luckily wasn’t too bad because it only nicked my finger for a really short amount of time. It rotated past my finger when it flicked around. Could have been much worse

Be mindful that a soldering iron cable can pull a soldering iron from your hand, so don’t have too loose of a grip. Learned that one the hard way :(

Main idea: They can’t restore any color by filtering or let you perceive any new colors as their marketing likes to claim. At best they might be able to improve contrast of certain colors while reducing contrast for others - which is not at all what they say it does

The video goes much more into depth about their deceptive marketing and such

Not quite like that but there is a thing called live patching that some distros offer. It’s mainly to used fix security issues rather than a typical update

Ubuntu livepatching and kpatch are some different tools out there for that if you want to look into it

deleted by creator

Click and hold on the link and you’ll get those options on Jebra if it’s in a comment (unfortunately doesn’t seem to work on post links usually)

For the first part, yes that will vary place to place. That’s why I said “often”, but it’s a viable method in quite a large number of locations. Especially in those which are currently some of the worst places for walkabilty/biking/public transit at the moment. Places with narrow streets are generally speaking more walkable to begin with. There are still other ways to make improvements anyhow

For the second, I am also talking about the quantity of roads (the more places part). More car centric places are going to have more roads to maintain in general.

But it’s still worth mentioning that car centric design can still can lead to trucks being used in places where there are viable transportation methods like trains (this applies more so for longer distances than just delivery to houses but a number of cities do have highways that run through them).

That’s changing the subject again. I was saying the commentor was effectively advocating for doing nothing because current infrastructure is poor.

It’s worth noting that car centric infrastructure is extremely expensive as well and requires constant upkeep. Bike infrastructure can often be made incrementally by simplying just requiring new/updated road to have bike lanes for instance

That is part of how the Netherlands got really good bike infrastructure and how a number of cities are getting better at it

EDIT: I should also mention that the car centric deisgn of many suburbs in particular is a large contributer to why they don’t have much money to begin with. The upkeep costs start to pile up and make the regions net negative for the local government’s income

The more a place is car centric, the higher these costs for upkeep will be (more traffic causing more damage in more places)

Their comment is missing the point. It essentially boils down to “the current infrastructure is bad” which is entirely what people advocating for less car centric design have been saying for a long time, but instead of using that as a reason to advocate for better they’re using it as a reason not to do anything

Many of those types of crops used for feed aren’t really aligned all that well. Corn for instance isn’t going used so heavily in a plant-based diet as it is subsidized (corn is the most subsidized crop in the US). There is also separate food-grade and feed-grade soybeans. 90% of US soy production is going to feed (and not to mention a good portion of the other 10% is going to soybean oil which is not super helpful for a plant-based meat)

90% of U.S. soybeans produced are used as a high-quality protein source for animal feed

https://soygrowers.com/key-issues-initiatives/key-issues/other/animal-ag/

Further, they are still getting massive amounts of direct subsidies

The Department of Agriculture has spent almost $50 billion in subsidies for livestock operators since 1995, according to an EWG analysis.

By contrast, since 2018 the USDA has spent less than $30 million to support plant-based and other alternative proteins that may produce fewer greenhouse gases and may require less land than livestock.

https://www.ewg.org/news-insights/news/2022/02/usda-livestock-subsidies-near-50-billion-ewg-analysis-finds

Also worth mentioning that beans are not particularly highly subsidized unless you are counting soybeans mentioned earlier.

Americans earning less than $30,000 annually are more likely to identify as vegetarian. Nine percent of this group say they are vegetarian, a higher percentage than is true of Americans in the two higher-income groups. Differences in levels of veganism among these three groups are not statistically significant.

Gallop poll

It’s worth noting that in countries like US, it’s really only things like beyond burgers and impossible meat that cost more. It doesn’t require eating those for a plant-based diet nor are people typically eating those every meal, is why plant-based diets generally have lower costs

Compared to meat eaters, results show that “true” vegetarians do indeed report lower food expenditures

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0921800915301488?via%3Dihub

It found that in high-income countries:

• Vegan diets were the most affordable and reduced food costs by up to one third.

• Vegetarian diets were a close second.

• Flexitarian diets with low amounts of meat and dairy reduced costs by 14%.

• By contrast, pescatarian diets increased costs by up to 2%.

https://www.ox.ac.uk/news/2021-11-11-sustainable-eating-cheaper-and-healthier-oxford-study