the children yearn for the mines

it also bothers me when people say “my algorithm” to refer to the thing that recommends posts to them. people shouldn’t ever say “my algorithm” unless they personally own a copy of the kick-ass prog-metal band

i swear that in every picture his hairstyle and face look slightly different. are we sure there’s only one elon musk?

i forgot for a second that the winters and summers get flipped in the southern hemisphere

it’s worth mentioning that very rarely is baby formula better than breast milk. the contents of breast milk change depending on the what the child needs at the moment. it’s really sick that some companies market it as a better option than breast milk

source

i think this has a lot to do with it.

and i think he’s also boosted a lot by the fact that he doesn’t really communicate that many original thoughts. instead, it seems like he tends to blindly agree with whoever he has on camera. so he simultaneously cultivates these personas of “having intellectual curiosity” while also being a stand-in for the average college dorm bro.

(i’m not trying to defend him here, he still causes serious harm by platforming bad actors and endorsing their views.)

i haven’t driven in a while but i can’t remember really needing to control my keys that much. usually they stay put pretty well once they’re in the ignition

what happens if people get their weed from may

i’m sure a little more paper work will fix this. we just need to find the right forms

it probably has something to do with how few people have tried this. the article mentions they only know about 132 people who have tried this in the last 70 years. the “true” mortality rate could be a lot higher, and those people just got lucky.

also could be a sampling error, since the article mentions some people fall out of the plane before it lands, which may make the survivors stand out a bit more.

this has got to be a truly terrible way to die and i feel bad for all those people.

this looks like a cool project.

is it an unfortunate coincidence that “chata” means annoying/boring in portuguese, or was this intentional?

this was very comforting to read

oh, how i long to live in a better world

another poster taken from us too soon by the exxon hit squads :(

it’s w, for wumbo

so many replies to this and yet not one of them has a link. i wonder why they’re having so much trouble backing up their positions

bill’s days are numbered

1 like = 1 missile

The links from John Hopkins, the CDC and Harvard all focus on vaping, and so are irrelevant to the question of nicotine rather than the delivery methods.

they do focus on vaping, that does not mean they are irrelevant to the question of nicotine. from the cdc link:

Nicotine is highly addictive and can harm adolescent brain development, which continues into the early to mid-20s.

there are also sections of that page titled “Why Is Nicotine Unsafe for Kids, Teens, and Young Adults?” and “How Does Nicotine Addiction Affect Youth Mental Health?” that focus only on nicotine.

from the harvard article:

Nicotine is highly addictive and can affect the developing brain, potentially harming teens and young adults.

from johns hopkins:

Nicotine is the primary agent in regular cigarettes and e-cigarettes, and it is highly addictive. It causes you to crave a smoke and suffer withdrawal symptoms if you ignore the craving. Nicotine is a toxic substance. It raises your blood pressure and spikes your adrenaline, which increases your heart rate and the likelihood of having a heart attack.

Both e-cigarettes and regular cigarettes contain nicotine, which research suggests may be as addictive as heroin and cocaine.

to your second point

To the cancer links, again without looking at delivery methods, this is meaningless.

i agree that it would be better to focus only on nicotine. i disagree that ignoring delivery methods is “meaningless”. form the johns hopkins article:

And, getting hooked on nicotine often leads to using traditional tobacco products down the road.

this is only to say that the cancer bit is not irrelevant.

This makes sense. Don’t inhale lots of particulates combined with nicotine in other words.

the part you quoted says that nicotine acts as an accelerator for the development of cancers from other sources, including things like car exhaust. these carcinogens are widespread in the modern world, so accelerating the development of cancer associated with them is a bad thing. eg, car exhaust fumes are everywhere.

I’ll note that the article also includes things in its conclusion that it has categorically not cites studies in support of.

i agree, this is bad. the problem you brought up with the “materials and methods” section is also bad. i’m not trying to defend the article holistically, i’m even particularly attached to that source (which is why i included a few different ones). the only reason i picked that article was that it explains some of the harmful effects of nicotine, and then backs them with citations. the article did this by reviewing “90 relevant articles” from PubMed and Medline, then discussing what those articles found - and these are the parts of the article i was interested in. i probably wouldn’t use this approach if i were writing an academic paper on the subject, but i think it’s fine for arguing on the internet that nicotine isn’t “one of the safest stimulants we know”. (i also included a few different sources to counteract the limitations of this approach.)

That doesn’t mean nicotine is risk-free, but compared to other things we’re happy to ingest, I stand by my statement.

your statements were

Nicotine is one of the safest stimulants we know, up there with caffeine in terms of safety.

and

The addiction potential of nicotine alone is also far lower than people assume,

i think the second statement was thoroughly debunked by the sources i’ve included: they all say nicotine is highly addictive, and one of them says it’s “as addictive as heroin and cocaine”. i think the sources i’ve shared also discredit the idea that nicotine is “up there with caffeine in terms of safety”. i’m not trying to say nicotine is extremely dangerous, but rather that its danger is underestimated.

Nicotine is one of the safest stimulants we know, up there with caffeine in terms of safety. There’s little meaningful reason to ban nicotine.

this is from a 2015 article i found on the NIH library:

Nicotine poses several health hazards. There is an increased risk of cardiovascular, respiratory, gastrointestinal disorders. There is decreased immune response and it also poses ill impacts on the reproductive health. It affects the cell proliferation, oxidative stress, apoptosis, DNA mutation by various mechanisms which leads to cancer. It also affects the tumor proliferation and metastasis and causes resistance to chemo and radio therapeutic agents. The use of nicotine needs regulation. The sale of nicotine should be under supervision of trained medical personnel.

source: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4363846/

in case you think i might be cherry picking, here’s something from johns hopkins, and here’s a source from the cdc. here’s something recent from harvard for good measure.

edit: i should be clear that the other sources don’t say exactly the same things as the NIH one, but they do talk about how nicotine itself is very addictive, and they talk about some of the harm it can cause