Ippus_21 t1_jefjsli wrote

Grass is primarily cellulose. It's difficult for most animals to break down into usable nutrients, but ruminants, like cows, have multiple stomachs that act as fermentors/bioreactors, where specialized bacteria break down cellulose in a way that provides nutrition for the cow.

Grain is primarily carbohydrate and protein, which is why it's sought after by animals that lack ruminant guts.

When cows are fed on primarily grass, it means a) they're usually out wandering around a pasture and b) they're eating their typical diet. This tends to produce lean meat and mean that the cows weren't primarily crammed in a feedlot.

When cows are fed on primarily grain, the energy-density of their diet is much higher, and it takes much less effort for them to break down, so they tend to put on more fat. "Grain-fed" typically means they were raised on a mixed diet and "finished" on grain (fed a primarily grain-based, energy-dense diet toward the end of their lives), which results in fattier, marbled cuts of meat that may be more flavorful/tender.


Ippus_21 t1_jef4cy3 wrote

"sugar in fruits is good for you but processed sugar [...] is not"

Flawed premise.

Sugar is sugar. Fructose is no better or worse than other sources of sugar. Drinking orange or grape juice is in effect just as bad as soda; they contain similar concentrations of sugar and virtually none of the things that make fruit healthy.

Eating fruit is good for you, to a point, because it contains lots of water, fiber, and phytonutrients.


Ippus_21 t1_jeattdq wrote

Because "simple" isn't always the same as "short." Even if you're not addressing the actual complexity of the answer (see Rule 4), breaking a complex concept down to where it's understandable is often not a short process.

Complex concepts are condensed things that often contain layers of foundational understanding, which then have to be unpacked for a layman to grasp the concept.

>4. Explain for laypeople (but not actual 5-year-olds)
>Unless OP states otherwise, assume no knowledge beyond a typical secondary education program. Avoid unexplained technical terms. Don't condescend; "like I'm five" is a figure of speech meaning "keep it clear and simple."


Ippus_21 t1_jeab5a3 wrote

First off, it's not strictly defined what "co-dependence" even is, which is probably part of why you're having trouble getting a clear handle on it.

>Codependency has no established definition or diagnostic criteria within the mental health community.[14][15] It has not been included as a condition in any edition of the DSM or ICD.

The reason it's considered "unhealthy" is (in it's most-commonly-understood meaning) because it tends to mean that one partner (romantic or not) is heavily dependent on the other for their emotional or practical needs, while the supporting partner exhibits excessive suppression of their own needs and emotions, and excessive self-sacrifice in service of the dependent partner's needs.


Ippus_21 t1_jaelipz wrote

It didn't disappear.

There have been multiple smaller outbreaks since then, and one major pandemic in the mid-1800s.

The last plague oubreak in the US was in Los Angeles 1924-1925. Killed about 30 people.

The reason the plague ended was that people stopped spreading it. Successful implementation of quarantines is largely credited with depriving the disease of new human vectors. That, and it had already killed a third of Europe and basically burned through most of the susceptible population. It's harder for a pandemic to spread when the population density has dropped that much.

ETA: You can still catch a Yersinia pestis infection today if you really want to. Go hang around with the wrong rodents in, e.g., the US Southwest. A couple in Mongolia recently died of Plague after eating the wrong marmot.


Ippus_21 t1_j6ng8y3 wrote

There isn't an explicit objective unless you want to try for the achievements.

The only real objective is to survive and build stuff you like. It's a bit like a videogame version of legos... only instead of a little brother coming to smash your stuff, you have creepers.

Want to build a vibrant village and level up all the trades of the villagers? Go for it.

Want to ignore villages altogether and do your own thing? Knock yourself out. Build that fortress of solitude.

Want to live in a grass-block hut and breed a million cows? That's an option.


Ippus_21 t1_j6nfoo5 wrote

They can, it's just that fusing iron or anything heavier takes more energy than it releases, because of the size and stability of the nucleus.

So usually iron and heavier elements mean the star is in its final stages. There's a LOT of energy in the core of a star, so heavier elements can still fuse, but they're absorbing more than they're producing. Once the star runs low on fuel that produces more energy than it takes to fuse, the total temperature starts to decline, eventually leading to collapse or implosion.

The heaviest stuff is only produced in the most intense parts of supernovas.


Ippus_21 t1_j6nduhi wrote

I think you have a mistaken understanding of "okay."

Bonded animal pairs can also demonstrate co-dependent behavior. In dogs, for example, raising siblings together is generally discouraged because they tend to form bonded pairs, which leads to problems like separation anxiety, one half of the pair being excessively dominant, etc.

It's not necessarily a good thing.


Ippus_21 t1_j644t8j wrote

Because your actual armed forces aren't directly involved. No NATO boots on the ground, no NATO pilots flying sorties, no US cruisers conducting shore bombardments. OUR forces aren't the ones firing the actual shots.

That's it. That's the only difference.

That's why it's called a "proxy war." Instead of sending your own troops, you're sending materiel, money, training, and intelligence to support an allied country against a rival major power. ETA: And yes, we are accomplices. Accomplice is just a pejorative synonym for ally.

Because major powers don't want to fight each other directly due to the risk of escalating to World War and the probable nuclear exchange WW3 entails. And aiming blistering rhetoric (and diplomatic weapons like sanctions) at a rival for providing material support to the opposing belligerent is NOT the same as declaring war on them.

It's how basically all the wars of the last half of the 20th and now the 21st have been/are being fought. Because the alternative is worse.

ETA2: But yes, countries can and have declared war on a 3rd party for providing material support to their original opponent. You just have to be very careful about doing that when both you and that 3rd party in question are nuclear-armed.


Ippus_21 t1_iy95mrr wrote

Because a lot of the symptoms of common viral and bacterial illnesses are not caused by the infection, they're caused by our immune system ramping up to fight the infection. Many of them even serve a constructive purpose, or are side effects of stuff that serves a constructive purpose. Examples:

  • Fever - turning up the thermostat can inhibit reproduction in some pathogens
  • Congestion - increased mucus production protects mucus membranes in the respiratory tract and transports debris (dead cells, mostly) away from the respiratory tract faster. Sore throat is mostly a side effect of mucus draining down the back of your throat (into your esophagus, and the extra mucus in the stomach can cause upset stomach, or at least diminished appetite).
  • Fatigue and body aches - A Defcon-1 immune system is energy-intensive. You're tired because you're spending that energy, but also because the fatigue signals conscious you to stop doing stuff and go rest so your body can spend its energy fighting the infection.

Ippus_21 t1_iy8p3e7 wrote

Because it only makes it "sound" quiet, without necessarily reducing the actual sound pressure you're exposed to, and it provides no protection against v. loud or percussive sounds.

Tbf, some legit hearing protection also includes noise cancelling, or has other technology to let, e.g., normal speech filter through and just break off the peak decibels.


Ippus_21 t1_iy8iw5j wrote

Hearing protection actually blocks out sound pressure (which causes direct physical damage to some parts of the inner ear).

Noise-cancelling doesn't do that. Noise cancellation technology makes noise of its own, designed to create an interference patter with sounds you hear so that they don't register as noise.

So... if you're going to be in an industrial or other loud environment (concert, shooting range, trainyard, etc) where you're exposed to problematic decibel levels, choose actual hearing protection, not noise-cancelling tech.


Ippus_21 t1_ixrhrl5 wrote

Just to be clear, the adrenaline does NOT improve your balance, coordination, reflexes, or judgement.

It doesn't do that under normal circumstances either. It's not a "skilled action" hormone. It just takes all the safeties off your normal systems. Heart rate and respiration spike, oxygenated blood is shunted to skeletal muscle and away from non-survival-essential equipment (like your forebrain and digestive system).

You might lift a car off somebody, but you may not be able to get the safety off on a firearm or get a key into a lock. You could also pull so hard that you tear muscles and tendons in your own limbs. That increase in HR and respiration can result in passing out from hyperventilation.

It will still do all that while you're drunk, but the fine motor coordination issue will be even worse, sensory feedback will be even duller (increasing injury potential), and god help you if you need to make any decisions.


Ippus_21 t1_itvub7t wrote

The whole point of cooking chicken is to kill off pathogenic bacteria.

There's literally no way properly-cooked chicken could "infect" raw chicken.

You can definitely get germs on already-cooked chicken, though, especially if you leave raw chicken/chicken juice on surfaces in your kitchen and cross-contaminate the cooked food. And since it's already warm (presumably cooling down from its cooking temp once it's off the heat) and not likely to be re-cooked to a high enough temp, any pathogens can reproduce quickly to toxic levels if you leave it out... someone could get sick from eating the cooked chicken. That's why you're supposed to quickly refrigerate leftovers of high-risk foods like meat - to inhibit pathogen growth.

You could conduct an experiment:

  1. Take two boneless chicken breasts of equal weight and thickness.
  2. Cook one to the recommended internal temp of 165F.
  3. Put them both in ziploc bags and immerse in a tepid water bath for ~15 min to bring their internal temps close.
  4. Leave the sealed bags on the counter, checking for bad smells, etc, every day until one of them goes bad.
  5. If you have nerdy friends with a biology lab, you could even see what kind of microbes they can culture/identify from the samples.
  6. Throw them BOTH in the trash when you're done. This shouldn't have to be said, but the way you asked that question...