StringJunky

What does the 3 localized density gradients suggest to you, does it mean anything?

Right. I'd never heard of that until now.

WASHINGTON (AP) — The world got a look Thursday at the first wild but fuzzy image of the supermassive black hole at the center of our own Milky Way galaxy, with astronomers calling it a “gentle giant” on a near-starvation diet. Astronomers believe nearly all galaxies, including our own, have these giant black holes at their center, where light and matter cannot escape, making it extremely hard to get images of them. Light gets chaotically bent and twisted around by gravity as it gets sucked into the abyss along with superheated gas and dust. The colorized image unveiled Thursday is from the international consortium behind the Event Horizon Telescope, a collection of eight synchronized radio telescopes around the world. Previous efforts had found the black hole in the center of our galaxy too jumpy to get a good picture. https://apnews.com/article/black-hole-milky-way-image-e482ee7b773b1053bcb296bbd9abea16

I think they are, or will be, resorting more and more to conventional ballistics as the guided stuff gets more difficult to replace.

Wow! ... bastards. Ukrainian intercept about that:

A 1930's US propaganda poster:

Whether they are doing it stoned or otherwise, I've no idea. The point was referring to your assertion of it being a social necessity. If the future generation's uptake of alcohol is declining then it means it has not basis in fact that it is a social necessity. Your assertion is reflective of a time and attitude that is becoming increasingly irrelevant to upcoming generations. C'est la vie

Yes, the phone is the 'place' to socialize, even when they are sat with their friends in McDonald's etc. It's really sad. It includes adults as well, but is ubiquitous with kids. Many a time I've gone round to my friend's house and his 17 year old daughter and boyfriend are sat next to each other staring at their respective phones, just like those at McDonald's. Young people seem to live more virtual lives than in-person lives now.

Social necessity? As Phi hopes, modern Australian youth is getting smarter about alcohol: This graph below shows the prevalence and recency of alcohol use for students aged 12-17 years, 1984 to 2017. https://alcoholthinkagain.com.au/resources/alcohol-use-statistics/#:~:text=Rates of alcohol use by,(33.5% to 14.5%). Note the number of 'never' drinkers rises at a higher rate not long after smoking was banned in pubs there - 2006. Smoking bans have been a killer for pubs in the UK as well.

Yes, I've seen that with pelotons in cycling, but I've not seen a horse turn the power on that much, and judging by the YT comments neither have many others.

You mean like carcinogenics and irritants? Hard to extricate the two because many people combine them, where tobacco acts as the supporting material. There's about 400 compounds, of which 60 are cannabinoids.

Concerning cannabis addiction: Note the paper says it relates to persons with ten years of continuous use. If you do anything for ten years everyday, you will be very likely automatically compelled to perform that action. Personal commitment and guided behavioural modification can alter that compulsive routine people call 'addiction'. Not by any stretch of the imagination does cannabis dig as deep a hole physically and mentally as alcohol. Concerning the "increasing potency" of modern cannabis strains: In terms of effects, increasing Delta-9 THC content on its own doesn't necessarily correlate with greater intoxication. It's actually down to several compounds acting synergistically to modulate its effects. You can get 10% THC strains that are much stronger in effect than one measured at 30% simply because the latter lacks or has less of the synergistic components of the former. Its just a way for breeders and sellers to relieve people of more money.... those numbers matter commercially and for some consumers it's a rainbow to chase. The % of THC does not correlate in experienced potency like the ABV of alcohol does.

Right. Still learning this stuff. Will this always be subject to the whims of the ruling party? Does it need to be written into the Constitution to make a policy more permanent?

Allito has a point. Abortion laws need to be baked into federal laws to have national primacy. The SC can't rule on what the Constitution doesn't cover... as far as I can see. As I understand it, the sole role of the SC is to interpret the Constitution. Until Congress rules and amends that it part of the Constitution, I can't see how anything can be done there.

His stud duties will be off the charts I reckon now. I've never seen anything like that: to have so much energy in reserve near the end.

I would preempt such a potential situation and make it an area of discussion well before it crosses their mind to try it, so that they know I'm accessible to discussing such topics. I wouldn't be a finger-wagger.

Got some steam!

You don't need to ban alcohol, the consuming public increasingly buys something else, so its use diminishes, just as smoking is diminishing and vaping is rising in the UK. Prohibition doesn't work.

Repetition is not more evidence. You've got nothing more to add. You are a man of your time and the world has moved on. You remind me of my grandad, who would be 103, if he was still alive.

You only need to drink too much to find out. Same goes with other narcotics.

As with many things in life, one often needs to step on the other side of the tracks to make realistic comparisons. Like touching a hot object. If someone says 'Don't touch it, it's hot' and you have no concept of hot.

The statistics relate to all crime where alcohol use was present, not just by chronic alcoholics per se... people that were heavily under the influence of it at the time of the offence. A typical real-life vignette: "My head, what happened last night?" " You threw a bucket of water over Eddie and Amber in bed, and Eddie punched a mirror and the police came. That's why you've got a black eye and he's broke his hand". That was four of us in a flat forty years ago after a bottle of vodka each in Eddie's flat. I started that, and I loathe confrontation and violence. Acute, excessive alcohol use is very prone to initiating violent confrontations. A wander through a typical city centre on a late weekend evening will supply more of these episodes. Tobacco is not a severe intoxicant in any amount and is only comparable to smoking cannabis if the pathological effects on the cardio-vascular system was the point of discussion. It's not like for like, we are looking at social and criminal consequences of substances that significantly alter the central nervous system; the method of administration is irrelevant. Cannabis is not good for you, but it is a form of harm reduction, relative to things like alcohol. It's not a binary good vs bad, but one having less adverse consequences to the person and society than the other. A useful parallel is vaping nicotine as a form of harm reduction that Public Health England has got behind. Adverse cardiovascular events and local air pollution i.e. secondhand smoke, are expected/hoped to subside at national scale.

Nobody is saying that it is harmless, and mention of medical benefits is an irrelevant distraction. It is not a supporting factor for recreational use or a means to lessen perceived harm. It has harms, but the social, medical and financial burden of recreational cannabis use pales in comparison to alcohol.

Notice he calls illicit drug users 'abusers'. If they are abusers, so are drinkers. Being legal changes nothing; they are all drugs. Being legal instils a false sense of toxicological safety and personal virtue relative to illicit drugs...