Salad_Fries

Every time I open spotify, I always start my music experience with one of 3 songs.. "Numb" by Linkin Park "Complicated" by, Avril Lavigne "Perfect Day" by Hoku (legally blonde soundtrack)

so probably one of those 3 songs

No problem :)

I wish you luck in your quest for a demo..

""Does the impact of pollutants and carbon offset even cover the cost of replacement given the current efficiency?""

Gas stoves emit a variety of harmful air pollutants.. The articles linked below indicate that these pollutants create a myriad of health issues that are particularly evident in children.. The studies cited in the article indicate that exposure comparable to cooking with gas increased respiratory illness in children by 20%..

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-health-risks-of-gas-stoves-explained/

Assuming a new stove costs $900, lasts 10 years, and you make $20/hr, missing just 6 days of work in that 10 year span from respiratory illness would cost more than getting a new stove. Considering that the NO2 quantity produced by gas stoves can cause a 20% increase in respiratory illness in children, I'd argue that switching is a no-brainer from a purely cost aspect, especially if you have children.. Missing work to deal with a sick kid is a nightmare.

If youre living alone & working from home, its likely that just factoring time lost to illness likely wouldn't cover the cost of replacement, but that is just 1 factor out of many..

“The coin game” has some of the best designed minigames ive ever seen!

The game is essentially just a collection of minigames, but it is put together incredibly well

What you're describing is a 200(ish) mile round trip commute.. aka 3(ish) hours in the car. Your post makes it sound like this is just a normal, everyday thing that a majority of Americans do, but its not..

as a daily commute, this is squarely classified as a “super commute”… about 2% of American commuters hate their life enough that they willingly subject themselves to such a grueling commute. Well outside the norm..

Would suggest a driving trip on I65 just north of Lafayette Indiana..

It is a flat boring patch of rural farm land just like the rest of rural indiana, but they added hundreds of wind turbines to the fields that stretch as far as the eye can see. It is truly a marvel to look at..

In essence, i drive through rural indiana every so often.. i can definitively confirm that the section with windmills is far more interesting looking than the rest.

Here is Ny times analysis of it... https://www.nytimes.com/2022/11/27/upshot/road-deaths-pedestrians-cyclists.html

If this is the case, then why hasnt the rest of the world seen a similarly startling increase in pedestrian fatalities?

The rise in smartphones was a global phenomenon. By your logic, the entire world should be seeing similar rises in pedestrian fatalities, but they arent.

On the other hand, the rapid increase in vehicle size/weight has been fairly localized to the US due to regulations that incentivized such..

Oh please, your toxic incel-like worldview effectively proved my point. pregnancy is inherently unfair and fucked up.. the unfair nature of it makes the burden of risk inherently unfair & fucked up.

No amount of male birth control is going to make you content, so i ask, what the fuck are you advocating for?

I want (my employer) to be able to choose my death panel (without my input, based on how it affects their shareholder profits) in the free market!

Fixed it for you ;)

From my understanding, its more along the lines of “risk averse regulators see the side effects as unacceptable”… not “crybaby men are crybabies” like your post infers. (Seriously, your post has some really toxic vibes)

Birth control has a lot of very horrible side effects.. in addition to the common hormonal changes, they also come with things such as an increased risk of stroke.

For women, child birth is extremely intense on the body with lots of increased risk. Lets look at the stroke side effect as an example.. birth control causes increased risk of stroke, but pregnancy causes an even higher risk of stroke. Its easy for regulators to justify the stroke risk of birth control because it actively prevents the higher stroke risk of pregnancy.

For men, child birth comes with no risk whatsoever because they cant physically get pregnant. lets look at that same stroke side effect for example.. birth control provides increased risk of stroke, but comes with no medical benefit. that increased risk is extremely difficult to medically justify.

Essentially, childbirth/pregnancy is extremely high risk for women, which makes it easier to justify the side effects for a medication that prevents it. The risks of childbirth/pregnancy dont exist for men though, so its much harder to justify the same side effects.

Yes, it feels unfair and fucked up, but thats because reproduction is inherently unfair and fucked up…

there may be something to be said about whether or not the regulators factor in the externalities of the pregnant partner when looking at approving such medication.. i have absolutely no clue though.

I know its super pedantic, but the word “accident” really grinds my gears in this context.

The proper terminology is “crash”.. accident infers that there is no fault or misconduct.