Phosphates were banned in dishwasher detergents in 2011, so most of the name brand companies switched to enzyme-based cleaners that use amylase and protease, which dissolve starches and proteins, respectively. And then some traditional detergent, which allows oil and water to mix, washes it all away.

The nature of the enzymes are that as soon as they’ve broken up the starch or protein, they survive the reaction and can happily move onto the next starch or protein molecule. So if they’re overactive, without enough targets, then any portion of the dishes that are sensitive to that particular cleaner is going to get a higher “dose” of that cleaner working specifically at it.

If you have 2 apples, and then I give you 2 more, you don’t suddenly have 5 apples because we all decided 2+2=5.

No, but some types of addition follow their own rules.

Sometimes 1+1 is 2. One Apple plus one Apple is two apples.

Sometimes 1+1 is 1. Two true statements joined together in conjunction are true.

Sometimes 1+1 is 0. Two 180° rotations is the same as if you didn’t rotate the thing at all.

If you don’t define what kind of addition you’re talking about, then it’s not precise enough to talk through what is or isn’t true.

I have a model of everything. Everything I am, my understanding of the world, it all fits together like a web. New ideas fit by their relationship to what I already know - maybe I’m missing nodes to fit it in and I can’t accept it

Same, and I would add the clarification that I have a model for when and why people lie, tell the truth, or sincerely make false statements (mistake, having been lied to themselves, changed circumstances, etc.).

So that information comes in through a filter of both the subject matter, the speaker, and my model of the speaker’s own expertise and motivations, and all of those factors mixed together.

So as an example, let’s say my friend tells me that there’s a new Chinese restaurant in town that’s really good. I have to ask myself whether the friend’s taste in Chinese restaurants is reliable (and maybe I build that model based on proxies, like friend’s taste in restaurants in general, and how similar those tastes are with my own). But if it turns out that my friend is actually taking money to promote that restaurant, then the credibility of that recommendation plummets.

For those who are wondering, this is an art installation called “Armoured Pram for Derry” by Eamonn O’Doherty, and appears to be from a 2016 “Making History” exhibition at Ulster Museum.

From what I can gather, it was created in 1991 but restored in 2012 after O’Doherty’s death.

Corporate buzzwords are cargo cult behavior. Jargon and industry-specific terms can be helpful for accurately communicating precise or nuanced ideas, but generic buzzwords are just people who try to sound professional or smart by mimicking the people they’ve seen in those roles.

Just asking “what’s my role in the meeting” is a simple way to get to the point, and isn’t impolite or unprofessional.

Especially if she gave them a good deal

a woman who cheated on them

Hmmmmmm

Fun fact, that gene is only about whether you can smell the compound in the piss, not whether your body processes asparagus into that smell.

They tested this by having people smell other people’s urine, and found that the people who can smell it in their own piss can also smell it in the piss of everyone who eats asparagus, even of the people who claim not to produce that smell.

Everybody’s punching up.

The diversity in preferences makes “up” impossible to define and order consistently between people. If you take a survey of a population for an ordered ranking, in desire ability as potential spouses, of a particular sample set, you might get wildly different rankings.

And then those same people might rank things differently depending on who they would most want to have a one night stand with.

Even laying out specific physical characteristics and asking about attractiveness will get those isolated features ranked differently. Heterosexual men will disagree on whether it is attractive, unattractive or neutral for a woman to be:

• Being very tall
• Being very short
• Having an athletic build
• Having pale skin
• Having curly hair
• Having tattoos
• Having a Ph.D.
• Speaking multiple languages
• Being Christian
• Being vegetarian

We’re all just looking for compatibility. What that means will vary from person to person, and what is very attractive to one person might be a huge turn off to another.

I’m generally of the view that you want to be with someone whose unique traits are positive to you, and who sees your unique traits as positives, too. That way both can fall within that stable equilibrium of both believing that they’ve married “up.”

Same energy:

In episode 2F09, when Itchy plays Scratchy’s skeleton like a xylophone, he strikes that same rib twice in succession yet he produces two clearly different tones. I mean, what are we, to believe that this is some sort of a, a magic xylophone or something?

Not if you want it to stay extra virgin

Shotgun gauge is wonky, so it’s not a given that the number would just be a diameter in units they are familiar with.

Yeah, it’s not intuitive that bigger gauge numbers = narrower diameter unless you’ve specifically worked with wire or shotguns before.

That still makes no sense. Is the commenter surprised to learn that a 0.223 inch caliber is approximately 0.223 inches? That a .45 inch caliber is about .45 inches? Yes, that’s how units work.