I hand pollinate a lot of my plants, especially cherry tomatoes. If you don’t do it, you’ll probably still get plenty of tomatoes, but you won’t get that nice neat row.

this explains it a bit. The quick and dirty answer is that when you boil a mash, you are boiling a solution, not just 3 individual liquids (ignoring all the other stuff in there). It’s similar to how adding salt to water lowers the freezing point and raises the boiling point.

Water is polar, while ethanol only has mild polarity. Methanol is more polar than ethanol, so it holds onto the water more. If you had a mixture of methanol and ethanol with no water, you’d probably get more methanol first, but the water changes things.

Pecan is literally a hickory, carya Illinoinensis, the Illinois hickory.

There’s actually more methanol in the tails than the foreshots due to complicated chemistry.

They need to do better at wording the titles of articles like this. It should read something like “34 dead after drinking tainted/poisoned liquor”. Contrary to popular belief, brewing does not produce enough methanol to be toxic, and distilling does not concentrate it relative to the ethanol to a point where moonshine could be toxic. Media likes to portray like you have to be careful not to produce methanol, when really, you would have to intentionally make it. Here’s a good writeup about it.

Methanol toxicity only really occurs when people deliberately add methanol to alcohol, either as a deterrent to keep you from drinking it (e.g. hardware store “denatured alcohol”), or to counterfeit real drinking alcohol. I can guarantee you this is a case of someone dumping a bunch of cheap, industrial methanol into watered down real booze to increase profits.

Yeah, I definitely agree we’d be better off cutting land used for livestock. I guess it’s a slightly different story in Germany because any land you’re using for livestock (or livestock feed) is presumably land that could be used for human food. In America, much of the land used for cattle is ranch land not suitable for agriculture. We do still have massive amounts of land cultivating crops like corn and hay for cattle that is suitable for agriculture, though.

Just going down that pro and con list, though, it really does seem unclear to me. OA releases less CO2, but it also stores less CO2 in the soil. Lower energy use/higher efficiency per land area is great, but what we really want is lowest energy use per X amount of food. The “enhanced soil and water quality” part is also debatable. this study shows a higher eutrophication potential from OA, so worse for water. It does seem to be dependent on the crop, and the impacts of beef are so insanely higher than plants, that it almost seems irrelevant how you farm crops.

It’s somewhat like saying that a suburban block is better for the environment than a city block. It’s true, but only if you consider just that plot of land. A city block is way more efficient in terms of per person effect on the environment.

I think the crux of the problem is that the original tenets of organic agriculture were set by some scientists a hundred years ago, but also people like Rudolph steiner who was an occultist. There’s still a mix of actual science and hippy pseudoscience mixed in to this day. For example, the focus on only “natural” pesticides means using compounds that have higher runoff, persistence in the soil, and broader impacts to insect life. I wish that there was more flexibility for OA standards to change to the best evidence that we have.

This is going to be different country to country, but organic farming can still use pesticides. I posted a link below as well, but organic farming is also not conclusively better for the environment. It has lower yields, and therefore requires more land. You have to balance the effects of converting more land into organic farmland versus the benefit of, for example, less fertilizer runoff.

At the end of the day, “organic” is a marketing term, not a statement of health or ecological benefit. Most complaints about conventional agriculture (and GMOs) are actually complaints about industrialized agriculture as a whole.

I wish there was a good, regulated term for food that was produced with the best known processes (and perhaps there is for specific foods), but “organic” is not it.

There is not conclusive evidence that organic food is better for the environment. Obviously there are facets of the environment impact that will be better than conventional agriculture, but there is a ~19% reduction in yield, and lower soil carbon in organic agriculture. A reduction in yield means more land must be cleared for agriculture, so the other facets of organic ag would need a to be substantially better than conventional to make up for it.

Is cbd regulated there, though? THC is illegal in the US, too, but since it comes from the same plant, and there’s no regulation and this study found 20% of cbd oil had THC innit

Yeah, that’s the thing. Weight loss by pill is only possible in a few ways. Diuretics temporarily cause weight loss. The only real options are drugs that decrease your food intake (like the new diabetes drugs), presumably drugs that could interfere with nutrient absorption (not sure if any of those are out there, but it seems like it would be sketchy), or drugs that increase what you burn.

People think that last category could be magic, but burning calories is called burning calories for a reason; it’s an oxidation reaction, and it generates heat. There are a few others that also seem to really work, basically all stimulants: nicotine, caffeine, and methamphetamine (which is available by prescription).

That could be because it’s an unregulated product, and you were getting THC.

I agree with almost everything you said, except I wouldn’t advocate for people including stretching as a regular part of exercise. Despite what people tend to think, there isn’t really evidence to support broad general benefits of stretching. Obviously, if you are a gymnast or another type of athlete with specific needs for range of motion beyond what is “normal”, go for it. It may not hurt, but it is likely a waste of time, and if you are constrained in the amount of time you can spend on exercise, you should spend that time doing things with well established benefits, like weightlifting.

The other thing I want to add on (again cause I agree with what you said) to the diet part is that people probably shouldn’t trust products like Athletic Greens to “count” as their daily vegetables, despite their marketing. I haven’t been able to find good research on it that wasn’t funded by them. Also, just more generally, I’m skeptical of the purported benefits of juice and smoothies. Again, it’s hard to find good studies on it, but much of the benefit of fruit and veggies is in the fiber and resulting delayed digestion, so it stands to reason that the processing removes some of the benefit.

It depends on the country. Everywhere but the US, I believe, osteopaths are witch doctors on the same level as chiropractors. In the US, they were originally like that, but their professional organization basically pushed it into being a real medical degree.

Now they go to the same length schooling as MD’s, and take the same exams as far as I know.

The core of the whole discipline, osteopathy, is a pseudoscience, though. While they are usually competent doctors they still have that core of pseudoscience. They like to market themselves as more “holistic”, but that’s usually a good dogwhistle term to let you know information not supported by science is going to follow. They bring up that they are the same as MDs, but with additional training in osteopathy, but that can’t be true because the schooling is the same length, so to fit in the pseudoscience, they get less science.

The real reason why we have DO’s is that we don’t have capacity in our country to educate enough MDs, so we have this weird parallel system.

Oddly enough, that’s one of the few functions I’ve found the LLMs useful for. Looking through big pdfs for specific information, lots of times “ctrl+f” doesn’t do the trick because the exact term I’m looking for doesn’t appear. Worse sometimes it’s a phrase that could be in there under many synonyms. Using the LLM to find the actual info is pretty nice, it just isn’t “AI”.

Walnuts work well, too

Either use sliced cheese, or hand shred the cheese. Pre-shredded cheese is coated (usually with starch or cellulose) to prevent it from clumping, but that also prevents the melted product from getting that nice, gooey, stretchy effect. Same goes for pizza.

In America, the government doesn’t technically have the right to know where you live. You don’t automatically get to vote without registering because the government doesn’t necessarily know where you live. You have to give your address to get a driver’s license, so often that government office also does voter registration.

Before our elections, we have primaries. That’s where each party picks who the candidates are from that party, but they are a state-run event. Technically a party doesn’t need to do this, they could just submit their candidate to the final election. Every state does it a little differently, but in many states, you need to declare which party you are a part of in order to take part in the decision for who that party is sending to the election. In some states, it’s optional, and when you go to vote in a primary, you tell them which party you want to select the candidate for, and they give you that ballot. Other states are weird and do what’s called “caucusing”, where everyone from a particular party within that voting district meets up, and they try to come to a decision on which candidate to send forward. In those states, it’s not a blind vote, but you essentially get a sort of instant runoff, at least in my understanding.

It looks like in Ireland, since you have multiple parties, you have more options at your elections, so you don’t have to help the parties pick their candidates?

Just to add on, having genetic variation in a particular branch is also called a botanical sport, and the example in that wiki page is the same thing happening in this pic.

In addition to retaining moisture and preventing growth of weeds, it also greatly increases the albedo of the soil. It’s a fairly underrated benefit, I think. Nice, dark soil can really soak up heat on those hot summer days. If you need your soil to warm up, like in early spring, you can keep the straw off. It also helps with erosion during rain. If you’ve ever grown a low-lying green like spinach, you know how dirty it can get due to soil splashing it up, and straw helps with that, too.

The downsides are that it’s weirdly stupidly expensive for the name brand product (gardenstraw) considering that it’s a waste product.

Getting regular old straw from a hardware store or local farm can be risky because it can contain a lot of weed seeds, and it can have herbicides that can kill your garden. It’s also generally longer pieces than the purpose made stuff, so it’s less convenient when you are placing it.

I think it really goes back through history. Finland was a possession of Sweden and then Russia. The nobility would have spoken either of those languages depending on who was in charge, and ethnic Finns were essentially pawns for the larger powers, and the finnish language wasn’t even written down much.

This changed when Russia started to crack down on Finnish culture, leading to a surge in pro-Finnish sentiment. People even changed their names from Swedish versions to finnish versions, and went from using “Christian” names to names from finnish mythology or culture. Actually, it’s somewhat similar to how black Americans changed naming conventions in the Civil rights era. The very concept of finnish-ness was somewhat of a working class concept. This, combined with a similar law of jante type belief meant there was and is much more of a focus on the collective good than in other countries.

During the Russian revolution, a Civil War erupted between left wing and right wing, with the right wing wanting a German aristocratic monarchy over finland. The right wing actually won, but it was very short lived because Germany lost WW1 right aftwards, and a liberal democracy was formed. Finland was super poor, but started to build itself up as it’s own country.

When WW2 rolled around, most people are familiar with the Winter War where they held their ground against a Russian invasion. Most people aren’t as familiar with the Continuation War against Russia, where they (with the support of germany) continued to fight against Russia, or the Lapland war, where they actually had to fight against Germany to kick them out of the country. The Germans actually used scorched earth on finland as they retreated, knowing they were losing WW2.

After all of that, a huge swath of finland was destroyed by the Germans, or annexed by the Russians, leaving many homeless. Finland had to provide for those people, so homes were rebuilt rapidly throughout the country. Since they were in the soviet sphere of influence, but they weren’t a Warsaw pact country, they didn’t get any assistance from the eastern bloc (and they actually had to pay reparations as an axis country). They were also not included in the Marshall plan that helped provide recovery to western Europe.

They survived as a people by taking care of each other, and they are very proud of that. If you go to a Finnish museum, next to works of art and science, you’ll see things like the baby box, or other displays about the establishment of the welfare state. Many countries have a welfare system, but treat it like a dirty secret, while they celebrate what they were able to accomplish.

One last thing I think is really cool is that they are not afraid to experiment with policies. Many governments will do little trials of policy here and there, but not many go to the point of actually doing scientifically rigorous studies.