Why would we even want that, though? Harris is a cop, and her presidency would likely be just as impotent and mediocre as Biden's. Like Biden, she's going to bend to corporate interests, please no one in the interest of pleasing everyone, not make or advocate for any major protective reforms to the democratic process (ranked choice voting, etc.), and try to take the high road against directly calling out fascism. When will the DNC get it through their heads that their departmental politics and seniority process shouldn't decide the president-- the people should?

Also, I find it immoral of them to play a horrible game of "switcheroo" with Harris and Biden. It feels like what you're saying is, they know she's unpopular and would lose an election, but if we switch her in for Biden through this presidency then everyone will see how great she is! We don't need an election, we just need the great and powerful DNC to plan our presidents for us!!!

To clarify in case it isn't obvious, I am a trans, disabled leftist. But this is EXACTLY why Trump is so popular and why everyone hates the DNC.

Is this household or individual income? Either way, whack

This article is garbage but I'm a molecular biologist and the publication they're talking about is really neat.

The "ELI5 to the point of maybe reducing out the truth" way to explain it is that the researchers can add "flags" to proteins associated with immune responses that make cells pick them up and examine them. This is shown to work for allergins (so say, add a flag to peanut protein and the cells can look at it more closely, go "oh nvm this is fine" and stop freaking out about peanuts) as well as autoimmune diseases (where cells mistake other cells from the same body as potential threats).

It's not nearly to a treatment stage, but tbh this is one of the more exciting approaches I've seen, and I do similar research and thus read a lot of papers like this.

There's a lot of evidence that we are entering a biological "golden age" and we will discover a ton of amazing things very soon. It's worrysome that we still have to deal with instability in other parts of life (climate change, wealth inequality, political polarization) that might slow down the process of turning these discoveries into actual treatments we can use to make lives better...

Still, don't doubt everything you read! A lot of cool stuff is coming, the trick is getting it past the red tape

The fact this has 40 up votes right now makes me feel like lemmy is losing a diverse user base. Like, where are the women to down vote this obviously shitty take?

Let's list some reasons why these women could have done this that aren't "women are sluts for clown daddies":

• he's their boss, and leveraging his insane power over them to make it hard to say no and keep their job
• he's just an extremely powerful man and they're afraid of pissing him off
• they have insecurities, (like the "loser cuck" fallacy!) that they aren't valuable or desirable as partners, and attention from someone as powerful as him feels like affirmation of their value even if they don't like him or he treats them badly
• they understand that, by not resisting his advances, they might be able to provide themselves a link to a financial source that could support them and a child
• he literally sexually harasses, assaults, or rapes them and they don't feel like they can criminally pursue one of the richest men in the world

Like, yeah, some of them might be individuals who have bad taste in men or are shitty people themselves. I'm even certain that some of them are! But damn, can we take the perspective of the woman for one second? It's not a good look to find yourself agreeing with incels on the internet

I'm not sure about the time scale you're referring to, but I have some expeirence with dog training and I've been interested in dog training history lately, so maybe I have insight for you. Also, I want to qualify this whole tirade by saying this is a USA-centric breakdown; other countries have different cultural histories with their dogs, and while the underlying animal behavior is the same, I can't speak to whether dogs in other countries are "well" or "poorly" trained.

Prior to the 1900s, dogs weren't really thought of as companion animals the way they are now. Dogs were usually from working lines-- hunting dogs, setters, pointers, terriers, ratters, herders, shepherds, guard dogs, sled dogs, etc. They were considered somewhat adjacent to livestock. In these situations, dogs were often "trained" by their breeding. You don't have to tell a working line rat terrier to kill rats, they just do. Sheepdogs will herd children if there aren't sheep around. Just try keeping a working line husky from pulling in a harness... you can do it, but it's working against it's nature. Mostly around this time, a person had multiple dogs of breeds with natural instincts to do the job they wanted them to do, and the dogs did it. The ones that did it best were bred by their owners, and the next generation was better than the last. It's also important to note that the major written documents describing dog training at this time mostly emphasized rewarding the dogs with meat and praise when they are good, and ignoring them when they are bad.

During and around WWII, there was a new interest in training dogs for policing, warfare, and personal protection. It became more common to have one-dog-one-handler arrangements, and since most working lines of guard dogs were more "bark at intruders and bite strangers" kinds of dogs instead of "dutifully and silently stand by until ordered to kill" dogs, there was an interest in developing training methods to achieve the desired result without needing to breed new working lines.

From this desire during WWII, two schools of thought arose. One was the "traditional" method (not very traditional after all...) which arose from trainers like William Koelher. These methods emphasized discipline, "corrections", and punishment. The other school of thought had its roots from behaviorists like Marian Breland Bailey (an advisee of BF Skinner) that illustrated the power of operant conditioning and positive reinforcement. They both started around the same time (1930s-1960s) but for one reason or another the traditional methods were more popular, and the reinforcement methods were seen as lesser "tid-bit training techniques" based in "the prattle of 'dog psychologists'".

It turns out they were both working with a similar framework-- dogs learn by associating an action or stimulus with a positive or negative outcome. The argument was whether positive or negative outcomes were better at inducing learning gains. At this point, mountains of research shows that positive reinforcement wins out every time, meaning that the behaviorists were more correct than the traditionalists.

Still, as I mentioned, the traditional methods were more popular for a long time. People still think they need to "be an alpha" or leader to their dogs, that they need to discipline the dog so it respects them, that punishing the dog is the way to achieve good behavior. Choke and shock collars, leash corrections, and "alpha rolls" are still common training techniques despite the evidence that they are counterproductive. Additionally, you'll remember what I said about the behaviorist/reinforcement methods being more aligned with training techniques recorded before WWII-- when farmers were training herding dogs, they weren't "alpha roll"ing them, they were giving them meat when they did their job and ignoring them when they didn't.

Anyway that's a whole fucken essay in itself, but the point I'm trying to make is this: prior to WWII, dogs were trained by being paid in daily food and by having the chance to breed. Many working dogs are still trained like this, perhaps giving you the impression that dogs "used to be trained well". Companion dogs are a more modern development and there continues to be two schools of thought about how to train them. People who look deeply into evidence-based dog training methods train their dogs with positive reinforcement-- these dogs are usually what we consider "well trained" dogs, and overwhelmingly these dogs exist in affluent areas where dog owners have the money to pay for expensive trainers, and where they have the free time to train the dog consistently. As class disparity grows, it is becoming more common for people in poorer areas to lack access to the education about the best methods, so they tend to default to "traditional" methods that were more popular in the 20th century. These dogs are... less "well trained". Even if someone wants to put in a lot of effort to learn how to train dogs, they might just not have access to the most up to date knowledge. Additionally, there's evidence that dogs trained with these methods are more susceptible to a lack of generalization than reinforcement trained dogs, which is to say they might act fine in most situations, but they act worse (more fearfully, less predictably) in novel scenarios. That's part of why you might see "well trained" dogs who suddenly and disasterously act out.

One last side note: often dogs who are reactive (the term for dogs who freak out and start screaming when they see a person or a dog or a bike, etc.) are not necessarily untrained. Reactivity is a fear response; you can imagine they might be like a normal human with a spider phobia. They might be 100% perfectly behaved in every situation... except for when a dog walks by. In this situation, the other dog is like a spider.

Traditional training might suggest that you try to order the dog to stop freaking out and punish them if they don't stop when they see another dog, but that's like punishing someone with a spider phobia for freaking out when they see a spider. The reinforcement methods instead try and convince the dog that other dogs (spiders) are actually harmless. This is shown to reduce reactivity much more than punishment. Still, reducing reactivity is like really really hard, just as fixing phobias in humans is. Even if someone is working very hard with training and using the best available techniques, the dog might still freak out when they see another dog (thus looking like they "aren't trained", according to your post).

And LAST last note, maybe the difference you're perceiving is from covid? A lot of people got a lot of dogs but couldn't take them out to socialize and train them due to lockdown. Additionally, during covid a lot of adoption agencies literally ran out of dogs, meaning that dogs that would usually be euthanized because of behavioral issues were instead adopted out to families. Compounded with a lack of socialization, and the fact that many people still use "traditional" training methods, maybe you're just seeing a lot of reactive, fearful dogs? Hopefully that will improve over time!

Anyway thanks for reading my whole fucken essay, lol... I wrote this while on a plane so I guess that's why I was bored enough to write this much. Hope you get something out of it!

I don't want this to be an accusation about lemmy's user base, so take this next comment with a grain of salt:

I feel like lemmy slants male the same way early reddit did, and the same way a lot of more technical communities seem to. I've definitely seen threads where the perspectives being shared feel alien and out of touch, and although I'm sure that they have valuable insights about many topics, it does feel kind of... homogenous?

One specific example is the threads arguing about whether to make lemmy more like reddit or not. Often, there are a lot of comments arguing that they don't want to change lemmy in ways that would make it more inviting, because then more people from reddit would show up. The implication is that the average user of reddit is an idiot or should be unwelcome in some way, but to me it seems that they are just trying to select for men in technical disciplines and who have similar world views to the current user base. Idk, it's not a great look.

Anyway, I'm non-binary and I don't have endometriosis so I'm probably not part of the communities you're looking for... still, I wish you all the best looking for your space. I think it's truly less homogenous here than it seems... We'll get more diverse perspectives over time!

Huge disclaimer that I'm not a plumber or even close to a plumber, but I did have a house and think about houses:

Isn't the current "standard" plumbing PEX plumbing, which is basically just a bunch of hoses?

Like I think you're on to something but the industry beat you to the punch 😉

Oooh it's even cooler than that!! You're spot on, acid is the problem. And acid from food, candy, coffee, etc. is harmful for enamel for sure.

But sugary stuff that isn't acidic also rots teeth. Why? Because the bacteria in your mouth do what's called lactic acid fermentation. Basically, when they take a sugar molecule and want to make "usable" energy out of it (in the form of something called ATP, or adenosine triphosphate), they end up creating lactic acid as a byproduct. In essence, the stuff living in your mouth makes acid out of sugar.

We also need to break sugar down into ATP, but we do something called cellular respiration instead. It uses oxygen and creates CO2 as a byproduct! That's why we need oxygen to breathe, and why we breathe out carbon dioxide. But, when you work your muscles hard (lifting weights, sprinting), you might use the ATP in your muscles faster than your body can make it with cellular respiration. In that case, your cells will also do lactic acid fermentation! That's what we're feeling when we "feel the burn" (well, that and micro-tears in the muscle, in some cases).

Source: I'm a biologist! And I love sharing weird facts like this! Thank you for the excuse to write this out :-)

Other commenters have good suggestions also, but one option I haven't seen mentioned would be to buy a powdered acid and make your own dilutions

It's easy to get citric acid in a dry form (like the crystal coating on sour candy), you can get 10 lbs (enough to make many gallons) of it for like $30-50 online. I put a small scoop in my dishwasher to keep my cups from getting foggy from our hard water, and I use it to descale our kettle and in our laundry, too.

Just be careful, acid dilutions are no joke. Whether you get the cleaning vinegar or make a citric acid solution for yourself:

• use nitrile or latex gloves when working with the acid solutions

• wear something to protect your eyes, glasses are probably good enough but goggles are better

• if you have an acid solution and want to dilute it, pour the acid into the water, not the water into the acid!!!

• flush your skin or eyes with water immediately if the acid gets on you or your clothes

These rules might seem like overkill but better safe than sorry!

Citric acid is slightly stronger than acetic acid so if I were you I'd make like a 20% solution to have a similar effect to the cleaning vinegar (so like 100 g powdered acid to 400 mL water). You might have to mix it on the stove so that the water is simmering to get the acid to dissolve.

Again, be careful! But as long as you're smart about it, take your time, and prioritize safety, you can definitely use this for descaling and cleaning (and cooking!)

Wikipedia link to radium girls

I think you got the right idea but that description is missing the big points.

They were painting watches and their employers told them to use their lips to make fine points on the brushes, meaning they ingested a ton of the paint. The employers told them it was harmless despite evidence to the contrary. They chose not to use other options because wiping the brush on their lips increased productivity and they were paid per watch.

I don't think you meant to imply that they were doing it for trivial reasons, but I do think mentioning that they were doing it for a job and that their employers were intentionally deceiving them is important context!

"if you can't afford to leave, or you or your family have medical needs and can't relocate, or if all your friends and family and social spheres are here, or if your job is context dependent, or if you're undocumented, or if your spouse or family disagrees with your desire to move, or if you're enrolled in in-state college, or if you're elderly and have lived here your whole life, or if you have a farm, or if your ancestral home is nearby, or if you're homeless, or if you have a strong sense of duty to your community, or if you're a military service member, or if you're a kid...

...that's on you!"

edit: also, many marginalized people know and will tell you-- there isn't a place on this earth for people like us with 100% safety from violence

I have an honest question for all the commenters saying "I'd rather not use reddit": where do you get niche information from other than reddit?

I don't want to give reddit traffic, but I find myself constantly looking for information that would necessarily only be available on a platform like reddit. Examples:

• Product info and reviews
• Niche troubleshooting for odd hobbies (fermentation, video games, diy)
• Travel advice from locals/regulars (do I need wetsuit to swim here? Where are restaurants that won't harass my partner and I for being queer?)
• Advice, when the "official" recommendations on SEO websites were clearly written for a litigation-happy American society (some healthcare, some law, etc.)

I consider myself pretty information-access savvy but a lot of these things require a "crowdsource" aspect that blogs and other websites can't provide.

What do y'all do?

Girl, this community is full of trans folks, and not all of us are trans women. I'd wager the majority of people annoyed with this post are not cis, and it seems like some of them are trans women, too

It's not even something I would post in a community just for trans women, like what about trans women that don't end up with these characteristics? Are people only trans women if they identify with these changes? Why is the assumption that men (and I guess pre-transition trans women) have anger issues and porn addictions? Why are those qualities tied to their hormones and physical bodies, so trans women who can't or won't medically transition are excluded from benefitting?

I'm confused; the link says it was updated in 2023 but none of the data is from later than 2022. Am I missing something?

how reliable do you think herbs-info.com is?

(the answer is probably: not very)

I'm copying my comment from elsewhere as a jumping off point:

Hi hello I am an expert in this

We do have these studies. We have tons of them. At the research level, the essentialist bias of healthcare is well-documented.

Basically, not only do we know that there are very, very few (really, none, when you come right down to it) areas where we can accurately predict a person's underlying physiology based on their apparent race-- we also know that it is underlying bias (and not biological evidence) that makes some healthcare workers and researchers think otherwise.

In fact, these essentialist biases are documented along other dimensions of identity than race, also. These biases are found whenever healthcare workers treat individuals with different sexes, sexual orientations, gender identities, abilities, and body sizes, too (not an exhaustive list).

You probably aren't doing it intentionally, but this idea that "we just need more studies" is a common refrain of resistance to change from people who have a vested interest in the biased status quo-- calling for further study is seen as uncontroversial, even if there's a mountain of evidence already (see: climate denial).

Moreover, it actually misses the point of how epistemologies of biology are constructed. In reality, there are many things we know on the research level that are not efficiently disseminated to the relevant expert populations. The truth is that we don't really need more studies-- we need to figure out how to get the current best information into the hands of doctors, nurses, and clinical researchers.

To address your comment about red heads, I'd like to point out that it isn't the red-headed-ness of a person that creates the effect you're describing, it is the presence of specific alleles for the creation of pigments that both provide tint to our hair and skin and are also involved in pain/drug metabolic pathways.

Sure, that means that red-heads almost always have the effect you describe, but people with semi-functional or single recessive copies of alleles of the same genes may not have red hair but might have the same pain-pathway dysfunction. These mutations can pop up in individuals of any ethnic background, meaning that it is impossible to rule out the presence of the pain dysfunction based on race, skin, or hair color.

Moreover, in red-heads, individuals may possess mutations in other gene pathways (or epigenetic variation in gene expression regulation) that partially or fully eleviate the effect of the pigment allele mutation. In simple terms, all red heads might have the pain mutation associated with red hair, but some of those individuals might have a separate mutation (that doesn't change their appearance) that decreases their pain or anesthesia threshold, making the net effect zero. This again means that we can't be certain of someone's underlying physiology based on their appearance or race.

source: senior graduate student in epigenetics, gene expression, and with a specific research foci in essentialist beliefs among experts in the biological sciences

Y'all, the article is talking about a media extinction event, referring to the increasing difficulty of obtaining enough funding to remain solvent as a news source and "race to the bottom" as far as advertisement revenue, page views, and subscriptions.

It is not talking about an actual human extinction event, although of course that is a huge blaring concern at the moment.

Why is it being down voted?

The chemist in me is appalled... But the queer clown in me is delighted 🏳️‍🌈🤡

pictures cannot capture the ephemeral, indescribable beauty of the moments of totality

total eclipse wins every time

get effin HYPE

Sure, notice that I included this possibility in the last paragraph.

Also notice that that possibility doesn't reinforce the perspective that "women are sluts for clown daddies"

That is so funny... tbh I know I'd get shit for this professionally, but it definitely frustrates me that we don't allow people with few other choices to have access to crazy, left field treatment stuff.

My best friend died of a specific and rare cancer this year. We know exactly how that cancer works on a molecular level, and we've found a few chemicals that interfere with the function of those cells in vitro while not seeming to harm average cells.

Sure, it's a huge risk to take that drug that's only been tested in a dish, and it wouldn't be worth it for most people. But he was going to (and did) die within a year of diagnosis. It's not like he had other options.

Maybe he should have invested in a rat costume ;)

I don't think that's true? They have a dysfunctional guilt/shame system but they still have other feelings, right?

Hi hello I am an expert in this

We do have these studies. We have tons of them. At the research level, the essentialist bias of healthcare is well-documented.

Basically, not only do we know that there are very, very few (really, none, when you come right down to it) areas where we can accurately predict a person's underlying physiology based on their apparent race-- we also know that it is underlying bias (and not biological evidence) that makes some healthcare workers and researchers think otherwise.

In fact, these essentialist biases are documented along other dimensions of identity than race, also. These biases are found whenever healthcare workers treat individuals with different sexes, sexual orientations, gender identities, abilities, and body sizes, too (not an exhaustive list).

You probably aren't doing it intentionally, but this idea that "we just need more studies" is a common refrain of resistance to change from people who have a vested interest in the biased status quo-- calling for further study is seen as uncontroversial, even if there's a mountain of evidence already (see: climate denial).

Moreover, it actually misses the point of how epistemologies of biology are constructed. In reality, there are many things we know on the research level that are not efficiently disseminated to the relevant expert populations. The truth is that we don't really need more studies-- we need to figure out how to get the current best information into the hands of doctors, nurses, and clinical researchers.

shoulda said "yarrr, ye dumb bastard!"

• it's true that this would mislead children, but the model could hallucinate about literally anything. Especially at this stage, no one-- children or adults-- should be uncritically accepting what the model states as fact. That said, I agree LLMs need to improve their factual accuracy

• Although it is highly debated, some scholars suggest Queen Charlotte might have had African ancestry, or that she would be considered a POC by today's standards. Of course, she reigned in the 17-1800s, but it isn't entirely outlandish to have a "Queen of Color", if we aren't requesting a specific queen or a specific race

• People of color did live in England in the middle ages? Like not diverse in the way we conceive now, but here are a few papers discussing the racial diversity at the time. It was surely less intermingled than today, but it's not like these images are impossible

• Other things are anachronistic or fantastical about these images, such as clothing. Are we worried about children getting the wrong impression of history in that sense?

• Of course increasing visibility and representation of all kinds of marginalized people is important. I, myself, am disabled, so I care about that representation too-- thanks for pointing out how we could improve the model further. I do kinda feel like people would be groaning if the model had produced a Queen with a visible disability, though... I would be delighted to be wrong on this front :)

why am I attracted to the man in teletubby stiletto boots?? Why???

The article only barely mentions orthodontics like braces, retainers, etc. and not as the substance of her major criticism. I don't think she's trying to call out the groups that you are mentioning, and in fact, the doctor she rhetorically highlights as "good" is the one recommending braces over veneers.

It's the veneers and crowns she is mostly critiquing. She also unpacks how the standards for beauty are affected by celebrities doing this as a trend. Specifically, the procedures she is critiquing make an effect that is only achieveable by paying for the procedure, and the cost of getting and maintaining it makes it a class signifier. The financial elite set the standard.

You're valid and your thoughts are a valid contribution to the discussion, but I figured I could clarify that in case you or other people didn't see that in the article.

Oh, good point! Yeah, in our old house (copper plumbing) plumbers usually did repairs with cpvc, not sure why.

I know you're at least partially talking about labels in general, but since this is in reply to a poll about queer identities, I am taking your comment to be related to LGBTQ+ labels.

I don't think most individuals with an LGBTQ+ identity think of themselves as only that identity. Race, class, religion, ability, and other dimensions of identity ultimately combine to create the whole person. In fact, most discourse surrounding identities involves some analysis of intersectionality, as coined by Kimberle Crenshaw. In essence, she illustrated how being both black and a woman brings different experiences and struggles than being a white woman or black man. As an extension, the queer identity a person has and the other identities a person has interact to inform their experiences in ways that are different than having any one of those identities alone.

If some people externally equate a queer person's whole self and their queer identity, that isn't the fault of the queer person. In fact, this is another reason why having a label (as inadequate as it might objectively be) can be useful. Queer people need those labels so they can maneuver in society to build coalition and obtain equal rights. If we squabbled over the differences between subjective experiences of queerness, our groups would be smaller and have less bargaining power.

I might be way off about what you meant in your statement, but i figured it was worth throwing this out here anyway!

To me I think the scariest part is the unequal power dynamic of value-adders (contributors, content creators, and users) and administration. I'm so worried because reddit feels like the last remaining bastion of un-SEO'd, unsponsored information written by real human beings. Users don't have profit motives and instead care about sharing information in our shared "town square", but it turns out the owners of that space can and will revoke access to that information if it helps them make money.

Reddit is the proverbial, contemporary Library of Alexandria. Please don't set it on fire, guys...

What's the point of giving a huge, extremely powerful corporation even more leeway to exaggerate the quality of their products?

If they do end up losing, I wonder what prescience it sets for other food images.

Hopefully, like, the standard that the images on the packaging are reflective of the actual product, or severely labeled as exaggerations with a real description included elsewhere?

Actually... If an animal you own/trained makes art... you did get to have the copyright to the art, until recently with these same legal developments. Now it's less clear.

I also agree more with the other posters interpretation in general. We copyright art made by random chance emergent effects (Polluck et al.), process based art (Morris Louis et al.), performance art (so many examples.. Adrian Piper comes to mind), ephemeral art, math art, and photography, as the poster says. None of those artists are fully in control of every aspect of the final project- the art makes itself, in part, in each example.

If a human uses a math equation for the geometric output of a printer, and they tweak the variables to get the best looking output, we consider that art by law. Ai is exactly the same.

It's funny, I find that illustrators hate ai art, but "studio" artists (for lack of a better term) usually adore it

I LOVE this

Oh hey ugh I've been thinking about basically the same damn thing

I'm also afab, trans masc, enby, pre-stuff, etc. I did martial arts for 13 years and only stopped because I moved away from my school. Kills me a little.

The thing is, even when I was at the school I loved, I still had to grapple with disconnection between my gender identity and the way my perceived gender and sex interacted with the sport space. It's not that they were mean or exclusive to women, it's just that they inherently treated them a little different, and, well, my brain says I'm not a woman. Stop that.

Right now I'm having the same problem because I live near the coast and I really want to get into spearfishing. It's not that women are excluded, or even necessarily that they're intentionally excluding queer or trans people, but there's a hetero- and cis-normativity to these sport spaces that is so hard to penetrate.

I'm sure I could ignore my own gender identity and ingratiate myself with other spearos the way I did before realizing I was non-binary-- usually by acting innocent, accepting lots of help, and talking in a sweet, high voice. Basically, if I play to their expectations of how "females" work I'm sure I'll be included and eventually even respected. But... oh man do I not want to do that. And I can't approach it the "male" way either, because it would be so jarring and odd that they'd think I was like... A bitch? Aggro? Etc.

Uggghh anyway I don't know how to help you (other commenter's are doing a better job of affirming and encouraging) but let me provide the component of: yes I see you, yes I feel you, yes omg it sucks

The article is about how there are a greater number of co-occuring global elections than ever before, such that more than half of humans will be electing leaders this year.

It is not directly making a claim about the importance of the US presidential election this year.

Okay, I agree it is "common sense" that advertisements are not usually indicative of reality. But it is only "common sense" because we have a culture where people are allowed to sell products using misleading advertising.

Honestly, I think advertisements as they exist in our culture mainly prey on our evolutionary biases. They exploit our drives that were originally designed to help us survive. The fact they are misleading is the point, in order to increase profits. Frankly, I don't think advertisements as they exist today are ethical at all, and I'd root for any party that wants to push to change that culture.

At what point would you draw the line of acceptability? Is it fine to advertise a fluffy loaf of delicious sourdough, and the product is a literal brick of hard tack? Is it fine to advertise a pair of denim jeans and receive polyester jeggings?

This is especially true when you must pay for the product before examining its contents. Sure, if your mesh bag of oranges at the store doesn't look like the label, maybe you're right that you should be fine with whatever you get, given that you can look at the product before purchasing. But what if you spent money buying a bespoke gift box of heirloom oranges as a present for a family member and they got a taped together amazon box with some green and half rotten oranges it in?

The promise of quality is part of the product. We could improve people's lives substantially by requiring realitistic advertising. It's learned helplessness to just accept the shit-cake because "well, you were stupid for expecting better".

I'm copying this comment I just wrote elsewhere because I think you might find it useful:

"I think there's a lot of evidence that for most things (like "new tricks") there isn't any learning disadvantage for older dogs.

However, leash reactivity/aggression is not about teaching a dog a new trick (or even a new behavior) as much as it is trying to change an underlying emotional response to stimuli. I don't know anything about your dog, and there are lots of reasons why dogs can react like that on leash (fear, intense desire to play and socialize, actual aggression), but usually if the dog is freaking out they are past the point where the "logical" part of their brain can make decisions for them.

The human analogy is that people of all ages can learn new skills, like how to cook a new recipe or build a cabinet or something. But if a person has a fear of heights, they can't just learn the skill of not being scared of heights. That requires rewiring the base emotional response, which takes time and has a high rate of failure.

For dogs I worked with, we usually asked ourselves if we thought the dogs reactivity was lowering their quality of life. That is to say, does your dog need to be calm on leash to live a happy life? If you live in a city and she needs to navigate past dogs every time she goes to the bathroom, I'd say it's worth trying to make that less stressful for her. If she lives in the suburbs or in a rural area, and she barely ever encounters other dogs anyway, why bother? The human analogy is: if a person works on skyscrapers for a living, they probably need to not be scared of heights, but many people are scared of heights and live totally fine and happy lives from the ground. Of course, a human can have some control over their environment and career, but dogs don't have that luxury. We work with them where they are.

It's also worth noting that even the best "rewiring methods" take a long time and usually only work to reduce the fear, not eliminate it. We do it because it will really improve the dog's quality of life, not because we (selfishly) want a perfectly behaved dog to bring everywhere and do everything with.

A side note is that there are critical periods for dog socialization and development just like in humans. I haven't looked into this in a while but me memory is that it occurs at like 8-12 weeks of age. Puppies in this period learn about how to interact and communicate with other other dogs in the same way we learn language early in life. If they aren't socialized in this period, they usually struggle to effectively socialize for the rest of their lives. Still, this isn't necessarily the cause of leash reactivity, so I'm just throwing it in as a side comment if you want to learn more.

AND lastly, if you do decide you need or want to work on your dog's reactivity, I strongly recommend Grisha Stewart's BAT 2.0. I am not affiliated with her in any way, but this is the technique recommended by reinforcement-based training organizations and has the most likelihood of reducing reactivity in my personal experience. The textbook is like literally hundreds of pages long and covers a ton of case-scenarios. It would take time to read and learn to do the protocol, and you need a BAT leash (a 15 ft leash) and lots of practice managing it, but I have seen dogs go from freaking out and screaming from seeing another dog >100 yrds away to being able to (tensely) stand to the side of a sidewalk and contain their panic as a dog passes. It won't make a reactive dog confident and bomb proof, but it can make a huge difference when applied carefully and consistently, especially with other methods like look-at-that/counterconditioning, Karen Overall's calmness protocol, and engage-disengage games."

Aight you got me there

I, too, am down to clown tbh

You're right and it's still hard no matter what, but remember that most of that time you're going to be sleeping.

If you get 8 hrs of sleep going to bed at 10pm and waking at 6 am, you could split the fast evenly in the morning and night (eat your first meal at 10 am and you'd stop eating at 6 pm) or you could stick it in the morning or evening (last meal at 2 pm, OR first meal at 2 pm) or some combo in between.

It's even easier if you're a lazy person like me who sleeps ~10 hrs a day!

Still, absolutely no judgment if it still sounds hard or impossible. Everyone's eating styles are different :-)

Yeah, you're objectively correct for encouraging people to vote for Biden instead of sit at home in November. Just please, please, please... I deal with offline average joes all the time. If we make one to one comparisons of our situation with that of Palestinians, most people will be disgusted and think we're incredibly off base.

We are in agreement across the board. I just want to caution you to be mindful of the comparison, is all.