CTDummy

Well at least we agree on the foundational point then I guess. While agree that spray oil alone isn’t making or breaking anyone’s diet (and yes I have used it before) that again is beside the point. The fact that companies are even allowed to do, at all, is the entire point. It’s almost farcical that a company would, with a straight face, try to claim an oil product is 0 cal. Especially given the impractical serving sizes they’ve had to use to get that number. .25 second spraying would be enough to cover the baking paper area for one cookie at best.

People wouldn’t use spray oil for frying? So you think half a second (which is double the vague 1/4 second serving size suggestion for this btw) is all you use every time, because I seriously doubt that.

800 is more reasonable? That’s almost halving the amount of servings in the bottle off the jump. I’m confused what your point is here. No one is using only .25g of this stuff or spraying it .25 of a second. You wouldn’t even be able to cover both sides of a waffle iron with .5 second spraying. This, again, obviously a way to misrepresent the nutritional information of the product.

Do you seriously look at 0g of fat for an oil product and think “oh yeah, this seems legit”? Regardless of its use it still end up on your food (especially for waffles…), more than 0.25g is going to be used in a given meal and 0cal is obviously bs. Wild to see people advocating for companies using deceptive nutritional information because “um well actually 0.25g is a really small amount” which is almost entirely beside the point.

What doesn’t make sense is anyone pulling out a scale, accurate to that degree, to measure out 0.25g of oil. No one is realistically going to get 1532 serves out of that bottle. The serving suggestion may as well say “rubbing this on your face is 0 calories”, ok but if it’s used for salad or frying?

Most people are just going to see 0 cal, think it’s healthy and layer it into their food. As others have said, most countries having realistic servings and an easier to interpret per 100g/ml/whatever to prevent this sort of deliberate misrepresentation. Which stops companies dividing the product size by whatever number is needed to make it round to zero.

A statement perfectly crafted to send professors of undergrad courses into a fit of violent rage.

Same OP just posted an article where Russia is accused of accidentally shooting a missile at Poland during an attack on Ukraine.

Welcome to the trial period said “patriots”.

Salty indeed. I can take the intended joke of a username and use it too.

Either way, minus the communism stuff, can’t disagree that capitalism in its current form, especially in the US, is a cancer. Though, I think that’s unfair to cancer, as it’s natural and its suffering an unintended byproduct.

While I accept that may have some degree of merit RE the Soviet Union at least; so the post may as well be meaningless. Multiple countries and their variation of economics fall under capitalism. Seemingly none fall under communism. So the picture is essentially claiming “communism, a supposedly purely hypothetical system of governing/economics has never done anything bad” which ok so? By the same logic it’s never done anything good either, because it’s allegedly never really been implemented. It’s comparing real life to ideals/fiction.

Ukraine famine? Red August? Note this isn’t in “support” of capitalism, especially since the US did do those things and it’s a late stage capitalist nightmare but the claim of this pic just rings false. Unless the Soviet Union or CCP circa early-mid 1900s aren’t/weren’t communist.

Personally, I’d much rather have the choice than just have whatever gets slapped together and shipped by a dev. I’m particularly grateful having recently gone to 3440x1040p, just how many game support it and the options I can tweak to get my personal sweet spot of looks vs frames.

If there’s no low, med or high options that a lot of games ship with; no shame in searching “<game> best graphics settings” or some variant. I still do for some games when I can’t be arsed or when the performance sucks due to a random post processing effect being borked and tanking performance. Games are more complex than ever and with essentially endless permutations of hardware configurations, the graphics settings tend to reflect that.

I mean it’s close to doable but you’d be pushing what’s healthy in terms of weight loss. The problem with rapid weight loss is mainly yo-yo dieting. You usually use a fad/crash diet that isn’t sustainable long term and then gain it back. Lifting + some cardio is the best bang for buck in terms of calories burnt for most in terms of time/effort.

The boozing is a problem for a couple reasons (beyond the obvious reasons, but I’ll spare you the sermon there). One beer is ~112cal. Maintenance for me was -2200cal back in the day. Drinking ten beers, which back when I was boozing was enough to get a buzz going. That’s 1120cal, eating at a loss for me was 1600-1700cal if I recall. So one night’s buzz undoes 2 days dieting, at least.

If you then eat to account for it, you run the risk of getting most your calories from booze, which can be incredibly harmful for you long term, I.e. deadly I’m pretty sure.

In most countries, if you’re in a situation that needs you to shoot a gun, you generally need to have grounds to use lethal force. If you are, where you shoot doesn’t make a lot of difference. There are arteries in your leg, that if hit, does not bode well for you.

Also, if you are in a lethal force situation (e.g. someone coming at you with a weapon) you want to aim centre mass to increase your likelihood of hitting. Shooting down at that angle (towards to the leg) also means the round could ricochet and hit someone other than the target. The “just shoot them in the leg” is very much movie/gaming logic.

All situations that don’t risk imminent loss of life should be dealt with via taser where applicable though, so agreed on that.

Quick, ditch the canals.

Yeah my questions are three-fold.

1. Why is this weirdo obsessed with canals?
2. What is even the point, just because a body is retrieved from canals doesn’t mean they died in there?
3. Even if they (or some of them) died in the canal, is that outside the realm of possibility? People who can’t swim can drown in surprisingly shallow water, being pushed from even a couple of metres could stun some people leading them to drown. I.e. not outside the realm of possibility.

Like what’s the point here? Of all the convoluted of conspiracies.