Experiencing certain forms of violence and harassment and having low-moderate social support from any source was associated with higher prevalence of suicidal ideation. Social support from family moderated the association between experiencing certain forms of violence and harassment and suicidal ideation (p interaction = 0.01); however, even in the presence of high family social support, experiencing certain forms of violence and harassment was associated with higher prevalence of suicidal ideation.

https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/73/su/su7301a7.htm

n = 1608 on this one.

Every study I’ve ever seen that looks at the link between social support and depression/suicidal thoughts in trans people shows a very clear link. Given the prevalence of transphobia in our society, this can entirely explain the increase in suicidal thoughts in trans people.

Yeah I’ve felt similarly before. I agree with the other though, drinking more water helps.

Lower self-reported transphobia was associated with a 66 % reduction in ideation, and an additional 76 % reduction in attempts among those with ideation

https://bmcpublichealth.biomedcentral.com/track/pdf/10.1186/s12889-015-1867-2.pdf

An increase by one context in which a chosen name could be used predicted a 5.37-unit decrease in depressive symptoms, a 29% decrease in suicidal ideation, and a 56% decrease in suicidal behavior.

https://www.jahonline.org/article/S1054-139X(18)30085-5/fulltext#intraref0010a

Socially transitioned transgender children who are supported in their gender identity have developmentally normative levels of depression and only minimal elevations in anxiety, suggesting that psychopathology is not inevitable within this group.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26921285/

So yes. Increased depression and suicide among trans people is, according to the research, entirely correlated with social factors like how much they are accepted by friends/family and chosen name use.

omg she looks like my first cat

So the thing that gets weird is that the heavier the particle is the more likely it is to interact with the slits themselves on the way through, in which case the wavefunction will collapse and it will seem to go through only one slit. Also, as the other person stated, even a hydrogen atom is really 4 fundamental particles that can interact with eachother. I’m not totally sure if double slit has been demonstrated with atoms but I do know it’s been done many times with electrons.

Edit: its actually totally possible to do it with much, much larger things. From wikipedia:

The experiment can be done with entities much larger than electrons and photons, although it becomes more difficult as size increases. The largest entities for which the double-slit experiment has been performed were molecules that each comprised 2000 atoms

And here’s the study that did it: https://doi.org/10.1038%2Fs41567-019-0663-9

Ehh, its a bit more than that.

Its a particle in that we know they are quantized into single photons. As in, it is impossible to observe half of a photon, or any non-integer number of photons, and one photon can only be observed in one place. This makes it like a particle.

But its a wave in the way it behaves - it can interfere (not just with other photons, with itself), and its movement can only be described through wave functions that can even take seperate paths at the same time, according to how waves propogate.

And, there are ways in which they act like particles no matter how they are observed, and same for wavelike behavior

Worth noting: “observation” is just physical measurement. You have to keep in mind that observing something fundamentally requires interacting with it - in order to look at an apple, photons must bounce off of it, which is a physical interaction. On the quantum scale, these interactions cannot be ignored.

Also also: this isn’t just photons, everything is like this. It may not align with how we observe things on a macroscopic scale, but this is fundamentally how the universe works.

At least is it 2 games bundled together?

Inb4 they say “its two games, so this will be $140!”

deleted by creator

Thats why I said “come close” - there are plenty of crimes committed by the ultra wealthy.

However, those aren’t the kind of crimes this kind of mass surveillance is targeting either. They are trying to get rid of petty crime, gang violence, theft… stuff like that. And those kinds of crimes would almost dissapear entirely if you eliminated poverty.

The only way you could actually come close to eliminating all crime would be if you eliminated poverty. But that would make the rich less rich, so not gonna happen.

Power brick, power adapter, or USB charger are what come to mind for me.

I gotta say I disagree heavily with your fiancee on dongles. IMO dongles are adapters for data of some kind, not just power from the wall. But to each their own I guess.

deleted by creator

This is ancient news, but I still cant believe they ditched lidar. Relying in computer vision alone when you could easily give it more reliable data to work with is just stupid.

So let’s look at these requirements:

• violence: not really. Vandalism and destruction of equipment aren’t violence, to my knowledge PA has not harmed or attacked anyone.

• non combatants: they targeted weapon shipments and military equipment. While I suppose you could argue the UK military aren’t combatants as they aren’t part of the war directly, but honestly that point is entirely moot given that they didn’t target people.

• political and ideological aims: sure, they are a political activist organization. Obviously that alone doesn’t make them terrorists.

So, even by what Wikipedia defines as the “broadest” definition, not terrorists.

I mean, at an absolute minimum, terrorism requires violence against people, which they did not do. They targeted planes and other military equipment. That’s not terrorism no matter how much damage they caused.

Im not saying what they did isn’t illegal. I’m saying it’s not terrorism. This is like if someone was charged with murder and punished for it only to turn out all they did was rob a store and you’re like “well akshually ☝️🤓 they’re a criminal so it’s fine”

Then the UK’s legal definition is fucking stupid. Terrorism is when a group attempts to strike fear and terror into a populace to coerce them. It definitionally requires violence and fear.

So they vandalized some planes and snipped some cables? And this got them declared as terrorists?

I’ve noticed a pattern where “terrorist” is often used as a stand in for any group that opposes the government.

Sure they did something highly illegal, but anyone who thinks that illegally trying to stop a weapons shipment is terrorism is insane. If “using force to achieve a political goal” is terrorism, then nearly every country on the planet is a terrorist organization. Idk if thats like actually the UK’s definition or something but that is a ludicrous definition for terrorism.

Terrorists use terror. Its why they are called that. Not the use of force, but specifically attempting to strike deep fear into a civilian populace. At no point was PA trying to make people fearful. They were trying to stop people from dying.

What’s acts of terror has Palestine action committed for it to be classified as a terrorist organization?

I find it very promising. As much as I love meat, its pretty undeniable that raising livestock is super inefficient. It takes so much food to raise livestock that, iirc, more farmland in the US is dedicated to growing food for our food than to growing food for us. Lab grown meat doesn’t completely solve this - there are still lost calories in the process to my knowledge - but its way more efficnient. Plus less land usage, less fossil fuel emissions, overall it would be more sustainable.

I see 2 big problems facing it right now:

The first is scale, which is the more significant. We’d need to figure out how to grow meat on a truly massive scale. Definitely doable though, just needs more research.

The second is “realism” or how close it seems to natural meat. Lab grown meat has the advantage over like plant based stuff because it is actually meat. However, ifnits too perfect or uniform, or maybe doesnr have enough fat or variety, it might be seen as unnatural by many (even just subconsciously) and push them away from it.

But yeah, could be awesome.